§ LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to the claims of British subjects against the Turkish Government for losses sustained by them during the War, and to ask what progress has been made by the Assessment Commission at Paris. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this question is one of a certain amount of complexity. Two Government Departments are really concerned. I understand that I am to be answered by the representative of the Treasury, but I am glad to observe that my noble friend the Earl of Balfour is present this afternoon, and I look to him to give us the Foreign Office point of view. This is a question which cannot possibly be dissociated from what has happened since the War. All the post-War Treaties contain an obligation to recoup private individuals, and that is accomplished by sequestrating, or, as I prefer to call it, confiscating, the property of enemy aliens. It never seemed to me a very moral proceeding, but on the whole British subjects have not done very badly out of it, If I am not mistaken, British claimants against the German Government will get something approaching 20s. in the £ The creditors of Austria and Hungary will receive pretty much the same amount, and I believe the creditors of Bulgaria have been paid in full, or are about to be paid in full, and are also to receive the accruing interest.
24§ The only people who get nothing at all, or next to nothing, are the creditors of Turkey who, perhaps, have suffered more than anybody else. The original Sevres Treaty, as the House is well aware, contained the same provisions as the other Treaties which were negotiated at Paris, and it made provision for the compensation of British subjects, but owing, if I may say so, to the vagaries of Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson, the Treaty of Sevres went to the wall, and was succeeded by the Treaty of Lausanne. In the meanwhile Turkey, which was almost literally ground into the dust, has more or less recovered. Its position is now, without exaggeration, a nuisance to the whole civilised world. The first draft of the Lausanne Treaty fixed the claims of the creditors of the Turkish Government at £13,500,000 sterling. Eventually, by a process which is well known to everybody here, this sum of £13,500,000 was reduced to a sum of £10,800,000, and the Turks who, whatever may be their other failings, are never wanting in impudence, put forward two counter-claims. One was for £4,500,000, representing the gold which had been deposited in Berlin and Vienna as security for their loans. The second counter-claim was one for what is known as the battleship money, which amounts to £6,300,000.
§ I leave the battleship money alone for the moment, and deal first with the deposit money. This, which is called deposit money, consists of a fund amounting, as I have stated, to £4,500,000. It is vested in an International Commission which has been set up at the instance of the Turkish claimants, and, so far as I am aware, this Commission has made no payments whatsoever. I should like to remark that although the £4,500,000 sterling sounds a very imposing sum, it does not amount to much from the point of view of Turkish creditors when you examine it completely, because this £4,500,000 is a fund for which there is a kind of international scramble going on at the present moment. We are not the only claimants. There are French claimants, Italian claimants, Rumanian claimants and, I understand, even Japanese claimants, and all these people are represented on the Commission.
§ The circumstances are further complicated by the fact that the Smyrna claimants, who have nothing whatever to 25 do with the War, have also been brought before this Commission, for what reason I am unable to discover. The two cases were entirely dissimilar. In the one case, the case of the War claims, we were belligerents, and each national considered that he was entitled to compensation for the loss which he had suffered. The Smyrna fire was a totally different matter. We were not at war with anybody at the time. The destruction of Smyrna was the result of hostilities between the Turks and the Greeks, and we had nothing whatever to do with it. It seems to me quite illogical that these two sets of claimants should be dealt with simultaneously. I may add that the prospects of getting anything substantial are most unsatisfactory. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that I believe the claims of the British nationals alone amount to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, although they have never been actually assessed. These claimants were first of all told to wait for the Treaty in order to get their claims settled, then they were told to wait for the ratification of the Treaty, and finally they were told to wait until the Commission made its award. As I hive already observed, no payments so far as I am aware, have been made at all.
§ I shall probably be told when the answer is given that the British claimants, on the other hand, have got another sum to fall back upon in the shape of that sum of £5,000,000 associated with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner which is a kind of ex gratia fund that was founded for the purpose of compensating British sufferers in all these belligerent countries. I understand that out of this ex gratia fund a considerable sum has been paid over to the claimants against the Turkish Government. I believe something like £600,000 has been paid. Here I would like to emphasise the fact that these payments from the ex gratia fund really amount only to a loan, because any money that these claimants obtain from the ex gratia fund will have to be refunded as soon as they obtain any payment from the deposit fund now administered at Paris. Therefore the prospects of these unfortunate people receiving any substantial sum are as unlikely as unlikely anything you can conceive. I am acquainted with one gentleman who put forward a claim to, I think, £43,000, 26 and who has received from this ex gratia fund something between £600, and £700, and he thinks it extremely improbable that he will ever receive anything more, unless I am able to make some impression by my statement this afternoon. So much for the so-called deposit fund.
§ I pass to what is known as the battleship money, which raises a much more important and a much more contentious point. This fund concerns British subjects only, and it is a much larger fund than the other. It amounts to no less than £6,300,000. The House will recollect that in 1914, when War broke out, there were in the English building yards three ironclads, two Turkish and one Chilian. The British Government, exercising their rights, appropriated these three ships. In the case of the Chilian vessel they paid full value for it, but in the case of the Turkish ships they refused payment, and, therefore, the ships were acquired for nothing. This action of the British Government at that time—I am not finding fault with it—naturally created extreme exasperation in Turkey, and created especial exasperation for this reason. These ships ere not built in the ordinary way by the Government, but were built largely out of private subscriptions provided by the population of Turkey. It was a kind of patriotic appeal to them, and I believe everybody in the country subscribed towards the battleships.
§ Naturally the greatest exasperation was caused by their appropriation by the British Government, and the people who are good judges of politics in the Near East have often maintained that if we had not effected this seizure it is quite conceivable the Turks would never have gone to war, and that the extreme exasperation and irritation caused by this proceeding enabled Enver Pasha and his friends to work up a violent agitation against us which eventually brought Turkey into the War. But it is no use discussing this particular point. The fact is we seized these vessels and we refused to pay for them, and the immediate and natural result was that the Turkish Government at once seized all the property of British subjects that they could lay their hands upon.
§
The question as to whether the British Government were entitled to seize then battleships without compensation has
27
never been actually made clear. Recently, in questions which have been put to the Government, the Government representatives have constantly denied that we had incurred any liability at all or were liable for any compensation. On April 13 of last year the late Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when interrogated on this point, replied as follows:
I am aware that Ismet Pasha renounced, On behalf of Turkey, any claim to the value of these battleships, but in doing so he was renouncing a claim which His Majesty's Government never recognised as valid.
That sounds plain enough, but if you look at Article 58 of the Lausanne Treaty, you will find these words:
Turkey also agrees not to claim from the British Government or its nationals repayment of the sums paid for the warships ordered in England by the Ottoman Government.
There is here, therefore, a flagrant contradiction.
§
How can you renounce a thing which does not exist? The Lausanne Treaty was not a dictated Treaty like the Treaty of Paris. It was a negotiated Treaty on even terms, and if you admit an Article of that character and put your name to something to which you have given your agreement, it certainly looks, on the face of it, as if His Majesty's Government at that time realised that if the Turkish claim was not substantiated there was a good deal behind it. In order to fortify that view let me read to your Lordships v hat the late Lord Curzon is reported by the Blue-book of the proceedings at Lausanne to have said on this subject. The Blue-hook contains the following, under date February 4, 1923:—
Let Ismet Pasha"—
he was, of course, the Turkish representative—
realise quite clearly that in making a concession to Turkey regarding the payment for the ships which Great Britain had requisitioned in 1914, Lord Curzon had taken upon himself a responsibility which he would he obliged to defend before British public opinion. He had made this concesson and assumed this responsibility in order to please Ismet Pasha. It was by far the greatest concession Great Britain had made, and Ismet Pasha should fully appreciate its magnitude.
All this can be found in the Blue-book.
§
Further, Lord Curzon pointed out—and this is absolutely vital to my point—that
The concession is made at the expense of British nationals in Turkey who have
28
steadily ever since the Armistice held the view that this money was in the hands of the British Government and have asked that it may be used to pay something on account of admitted claims.
Here, as I have already said, the validity of the claims is practically acknowledged, and it was on the basis of this acknowledgment that Turkey consented to sign the Treaty. I do not want to throw any blame on the late Lord Curzon, for I consider he was, perhaps, the most valuable statesman this country has possessed of recent years, and it must be remembered that he was fighting this battle by himself and with absolutely no support from any of our Allies on any important point. The long and short of all this is that His Majesty's Government have got two very valuable battleships for nothing, and, on the other hand, the claimants upon Turkey, who have very strong claims, get nothing whatever. That is really the whole case.
§ I only desire to point out in conclusion that these are claims on the part of British merchants in the Near East who have been the mainstay of British trade in that part of the world for centuries. They suffered severely during the War. At a moment's notice many of them were turned out of the country, their property seized, their houses seized, and everything they enjoyed seized. They are now in an impoverished and crippled position. On the other side you hear laments that the trade of this country in the Near East is diminishing. In former years, indeed only a short time ago, British trade in Turkey was predominant and was, perhaps, as important as the trade of most of the European nations put together. If there is any real desire to recover that trade the most practical means of attaining that object is to enable these British merchants in Turkey, who thoroughly understand the question, to be allowed to recover; and we should try to set them on their feet again. It is only by obtaining some measure of compensation for the heavy losses they have sustained that anything of the kind can be effected.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHMy Lords, the speech of the noble Lord divides itself into two parts. The first part consisted of a criticism of the policy of His 29 Majesty's Government so far as British nationals' claims against Turkey during the War are concerned, and the second part was merely an inquiry as to the progress of the Paris Commission which has been formed to deal with these claims. I will deal with the first part of his speech first. The claims were, as the noble Lord has said, divided into two classes—first, those for damage which was suffered during the War with Germany, and for which Germany as an Ally of Turkey is partly responsible; and, secondly, that damage which was suffered during the Nationalist régime in Turkey from 1920 to 1923. I do not intend so enter into an argument with the noble Lord as to whether these claims should be admitted at all in so far as the Paris Commission is concerned, but at any rate the damage was suffered during the War between Turkey, our late enemy, and Greece, our late Ally; and it was just as important to the people concerned as the previous damage
The first class of claims, damage suffered during the War with Germany, was treated in exactly the same way as damage due to German action itself. The noble Lord was quite right. In May, 1920, the Government decided to allocate a sum of £5,000,000 for compensation for War damage, and a Royal Commission was subsequently set up, of which Lord Sumner was Chairman, to deal with the distribution of this sum of money. The country owes a very great debt to that Commission for the extremely successful way in which they performed a very difficult task. It is not necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with the details and the conclusions and the rates that the Commission laid down. So far as British nationals' claims against Turkey fire concerned, these payments were made as an advance recoverable out of awards which were to be made by the Paris Commission later on. The claims, I think, amounted to something like £2,000,000, and so far about £750,000 has already been paid.
I now come to Article 58 of the Lausanne Treaty. Under this Article Turkey renounced her claims to a sum of approximately £5,000,000 which had been given by Germany and Austria to Turkey during the War. This money remained in Berlin and in Vienna during that time and it was transferred to the 30 Allies under the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty with Austria. It was decided to set up an inter-Allied Commission to deal with the distribution of this sum of money and there were British, French and Italian claimants, as well as a small claim from Japan, which, I understand, is to share in the distribution. I should like to say a word about the second class of claimants—namely, those who claim for damage done during the Nationalist régime later on in Turkey. For this damage Germany naturally has no responsibility, and therefore the claims under this heading are not eligible for awards from Lord Sumner's fund, but their claims will rank against the stun held by the Paris Commission. I understand that there are claims amounting to something like £1,000,000 and, although it is difficult to give an exact estimate at the present moment, that means that altogether there are claims of about £3,000,000 by British nationals.
Before I say a word or two about the progress that the Commission has made, I think it would be right, to refer to some of the criticisms which have been levelled against His Majesty's Government with regard to the arrangements that they have made on behalf of British claimants. The first and most important point to which the noble Lord referred was undoubtedly the question of the requisitioned battleships. His Majesty's Government have never admitted any claim for compensation from Turkey with regard to these battleships, and the argument that the requisitioning of British property in Turkey was a direct result of the requisitioning of these battleships does not, I think, hold water because this requisitioning was made, not against British nationals alone, but generally against all enemy nationals in Turkey. Payment would undoubtedly have been made to Turkey if she had remained neutral, but it was common knowledge at that time that Turkey was not very favourable to our cause and, when she joined the Central Powers against us, all her rights with regard to this claim were confiscated under International Law. To pay such a sum as the noble Lord refers to would involve a separate Vote by Parliament, and in view of the provisions which have been made—namely the Sumner Fund and the Paris Commission—successive Govern- 31 ments, including the present Government, have not felt justified in advising that such a course should be taken.
With regard to what happened at the Lausanne Conference, I would like, first, to say this. It is suggested that originally a sum ranging from £12,000,000 to £15.000,000 was claimed for, and that finally a sum of approximately £5,000,000 was accepted on condition that Turkey renounced her claim with regard to these battleships. I wish to repeat that this claim was never admitted. The reason why this considerable sum—namely, £12,000,000 to £15,000,000—was originally claimed was that it was obviously necessary, in order to negotiate with Turkey, to ask for a sum of money which it was not expected to obtain in the end. The second reason why this £5,000,000 was accepted rather than the larger sum, was that, in view of the fact that Turkey was then and still is in a very impoverished condition, it was no good asking her for a great deal more than she could pay, because the result would have been to lead to endless discussions and to cause a further delay which would not in any way have helped the claimants.
The noble Lord has referred to the part that Lord Curzon played at the end of the first part of the Conference, but I think it is only fair to say that the sole reason why Lord Curzon made his offer was that the Reparations question was the only outstanding one at that moment and he felt that, if this matter could be settled, it might be a question of averting a fresh Mar with Turkey. I only wish to emphasise the fact that, not only did it not entail a liability to contribute to the Reparations pool, but far less did it admit the claim of compensation upon the part of the Turkish Government so far as the requisitioned battleships were concerned. The noble Lord referred to the fact that German property in this country was sequestrated with a view to helping British claimants against Germany for damage suffered during the War, whereas claimants against Turkey did not have the satisfaction of seeing Turkish property in this country sequestrated in the same way. The explanation of that is really comparatively simple. It is that there was, to all intents and purposes, no Turkish property in this country to sequestrate. In the circumstances which I have tried as briefly as possible to 32 explain to your Lordships, His Majesty's Government, like successive Governments before it, does not see its way to ask Parliament to vote further money for compensation to claimants under this head.
The noble Lord asked what progress the Commission had been making, and before I sit down, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon that point. The Commission referred to, which is now known as the Paris Commission, was set up almost immediately after the Treaty was ratified in August last year and delegates from three countries—Britain, France and Italy—were forthwith appointed. They drew up their budget, which was then submitted for approval to the respective Governments. I do not think it is at all necessary to trouble your Lordships with the details of this budget. They invested the sum at their disposal—namely £T5,000,000, which amounts to something over £4,600,000 in British gold—in various bonds, nearly all in dollar securities. With regard to the collection of claims, the Commission put advertisements in the Press, both in Europe and the Near East, and furthermore the British delegate made arrangements with the Reparations Claims Department and the Dominion and Indian Government and other bodies to ensure that all documents emanating from claimants should be sent to that Commission, so that the claimants should be able to put their case before the Commission in as favour able a light as possible.
The claims up to the present moment number 4,820, and it is estimated that by August 6, 1925, the final date for sending in claims, there will be about 5,000 claims. There still remain important questions of principle to settle, and, in these circumstances, it is impossible yet to make any definite statement with regard to the aggregate number and amount of claims which are likely to rank against the Paris Commission. There are still outstanding questions of protected persons, which involve, I understand, a large number of French claims: the position of Cypriots, a matter which involves at least 500 British claims and some Italian claims; the position of religious and other unincorporated bodies; of limited companies where the members do not all belong to the same nationality; and various other questions of that kind. Some important 33 decisions have been reached. The question of damages to the person have been settled, and the question of how far the legal personal representative can be admitted, which is very important seeing that the damage was in many instances done as long as ten years ago. In fact, tables have been laid down with regard to these matters and progress has been made.
There is the question of the Smyrna fire, to which my noble friend referred is a rather strong terms, which is a rather complicated matter owing to the fact that a good many war damage policies have been paid there. The position is improving and, in view of a final settlement, the Commission sent out a sub-Commission to Smyrna to consult with the local experts. They have made suggestions to the Commission which have been adopted and which, it, is hoped, will prove of considerable value. In order to pave the way to that Sub-Commission and to other Sub-Commissions which it is hoped may be sent out, the Commission decided to pay a visit to the Near East this year. They left Paris in March and visited Constantinople. Smyrna, Rhodes, Cyprus, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and the British representative took the opportunity of going to Malta as well. They were able to glean a large, amount of useful information, to discuss the general situation with the people on the spot and to explain their views with regard to the system under which compensation should be paid. Furthermore, claimants were allowed to meet their delegate if they 60 wished to do, and in that way to make it unnecessary to secure further proof later on in matters which are generally accepted to be facts and to be true.
That is as far I think as I can go. It will be admitted that to deal with something like 16,000 claims in a reasonable time is an immense task for any body of men and this task has been immeasurably increased by the fact that much evidence has been lost in the course of time which has elapsed. Claimants in many eases have died or are untraceable, but nevertheless His Majesty's Government are very conscious of the necessity that the work of this Commission should be completed at the earliest possible moment. The British delegate has always pressed this view upon his colleagues, and it is hoped that the work of the Commission 34 will be accelerated and His Majesty's Government will, if necessary, suggest the taking of any steps for distributing this fund which may be required in order that it may be distributed at the earliest possible moment.
§ LORD LAMINGTONMy Lords, a Question has been raised by my noble friend Lord Newton that is of an extremely complicated character, but I must congratulate the noble Earl on the lucid way in which he has replied to it. His closing remarks were, I understand, completely devoted to the work of the Paris Commission. The only observations I wish to make are in regard to the money that our traders claim in respect of the requisition made on their property owing to the seizure of those Turkish ships at the beginning of the War. Here, it seems to me, the Government are extremely unsatisfactory. These two ships were seized when they belonged to a nation with which were at perfect peace at the time. All the Government say is that they never recognised this claim. That is a peremptory way of dealing with the question when the Turks retaliate and seize the property of our British subjects in Turkey. Apparently the only redress due to those unfortunate people of our own nationality is that the Government do not recognise that they did anything of a high-handed nature in seizing those ships.
Lord Newton said that he would not go into the legality of the action, but undoubtedly that act provoked Turkey later on to enter the War against us. Many people felt that the action was of a very provocative character. It is owing to that act that our people have, lost any claim to redress. It is extremely unfortunate for our fellow citizens that the Government should deal with a subject in this very inconsequential manner on the principle that "might is right." I only hope that my noble friend will press his Question on this particular point and will get some compensation paid to those whose property was seized owing to the direct action of His Majesty's Government immediately after the outbreak of War.
§ THE EARL OF BALFOURMy Lords, if the appeal is made to me, which I gather it is I am afraid I have very little information to give my noble friend. I 35 would ask him to remember this. In the first place, I understand that it is a complete misapprehension to suppose that the requisitions made at the outbreak of War upon British subjects were in consequence of the seizure of the ships. They were made upon the nationals of all the Allied Powers. They were not directed towards British subjects chiefly or alone. The other point I have to make is one that is constantly forgotten. Though it is perfectly true, if my memory serves me aright, that His Majesty's Government had not conclusive information that Turkey was hostile to the. Allied Powers when the War broke out, they had strong suspicions that that was the case, and those suspicions turned out perfectly accurate because Turkey had made a secret Treaty with Germany prior to the outbreak of War which committed her to the Central Powers. In those circumstances there is no case that the British Government acted harshly towards Turkey in seizing those ships, or that British subjects suffered owing to the action with regard to the ships, or that Turkey had the least right to complain of our taking the ships and not paying for them, considering that at the time they were taken they belonged to a Power which had actually entered into a Treaty directed against this country.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, it is only by the leave of the House that I can comment on what has been said by the two noble Lords on the Front Bench, but I confess that I am positively shocked at the immorality of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, more, especially in one so young. The view of my noble friend is, if I interpret him correctly, that it is quite right that the creditors of Turkey should be sacrified for the purpose of obtaining a Treaty and, in the second place, that it is quite unreasonable for these creditors of Turkey 10 expect to be recompensed because there wore not a sufficient number of Turkish subjects in this country to rob. That argument might have been applied to the creditors of the Bulgarian Government and the Austro-Hungarian Government. You could not seize an equivalent amount in those cases and the difference had to be made up out of reparations.
Lord Balfour is not quite accurate as to the retaliation exercised by the Turks when the ships were seized. I am 36 informed that the Turks retaliated almost exclusively on British subjects and that other nationals did not suffer at all, or if they suffered it was to a very small extent. I must emphasise the fact that the contention which I made has not been disputed at all. It is all very fine for the two noble Lords to say that there is no responsibility and no liability for these battleships. That liability is clearly admitted in the Treaty.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHIt is not admitted.
§ LORD NEWTONI refer my noble friend to Article 58.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHI contend that that merely emphasises the attitude which His Majesty's Government have taken all along. It was merely to make it absolutely definite and certain.
§ LORD NEWTONThere is nothing in the Treaty saying that you do not recognise this liability. What you do is to ask the Turks to renounce it; it is no good denying it, nor is it any good denying the facts that we have obtained these two very valuable warships for nothing at all, and that the creditors of Turkey may, with a certain amount of justice, and stretching the argument to its utmost, almost contend that they are the people who have to pay for them. I hope this subject will be revived in another place and by people who can make more impression on the Government than I am able to do personally. At all events, I hope it will not be lost sight of.