HL Deb 23 February 1927 vol 66 cc210-20

LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the responsibilities and duties of a Mandatory Power in the administration of a mandated area. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Question that I have to raise will not lead again to any misunderstanding between the noble Viscount opposite and myself, because I always feel that on questions concerning the League there ought not, at any rate on technical points, to be antagonism between those who have had a large practical experience at Geneva. I have indicated to the noble Viscount that the points to which I wish to call attention concern the Tanganyika Mandate, and I wish to do so at this time because I want to refer to a statement that was made in another place by the Secretary of State for Dominion and Colonial Affairs, and I do not want the occasion to pass by without the matter being considered in your Lordships' House.

The Tanganyika Mandate comes, of course, within Article 22 of the Covenant of the League, but it conies under the special provisions applicable to territories in Central Africa in which, under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, the interests of Germany were renounced. I emphasise the word "renounced," because that was the true position. Article 22 contained these words:— To those Colonies and territories which, as a consequence of the late War, have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States"— that is, in this case, under the sovereignty of Germany— which formerly governed them … there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The leading factor that really governs the whole position is that the Mandatory Power is not in the position of all ordinary sovereign Power, having regard to the rights of its own nationals, but in that of a trustee. It is there in order to safeguard the interests of the natives and to do what it can to qualify them to be capable of independent government.

The word used in the same Article is "tutelage" The Mandatory Power is asked to undertake the responsibility of accepting tutelage, and it is stated, in the words of the Article,— that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. Accordingly their duty is that of trustees, and the League of Nations are the body or authority to whom they may have to give an account of their stewardship. Similar passages occur several times in Article 22, and it is particularly pointed out that the duties of administration—not of sovereignty or anything of that kind—are duties entrusted to the Mandatory Powers which they have to carry out as a matter of trusteeship. It is then stated that in each Mandate the particular powers shall be explicitly defined. I shall have a word to say on that point at a subsequent stage, but I need not refer to it at the moment.

The objection that I have to raise—and I should be glad of the noble Viscount's particular attention on this point—is that it appears to me to have been stated or claimed, not that the Mandatory Power was in the position of a trustee, but that it had in the ordinary sense a right and title, in Tanganyika for instance, as if that territory were a part of our Empire. I do not know whether this was intended, but it certainly appears to have been stated, and the point is so important, in my opinion, that I desire to take the earliest possible opportunity of raising my protest in your Lordships' House. As regards the position between a mandated territory and a Mandatory Power, I will make three quotations, though I think that the terms of Article 22 are clear and specific. In what was known as the Colby Note, representing the United States, this statement appeared:— This dominion of territories"— that is to say, the mandated dominion of territories— brought under the temporary control"— I will ask your Lordships to note the word "temporary"— of the Allied and Associated Powers will be wholly misconceived, not to say abused, if there is ever the slightest deviation from the spirit and exclusive purpose of a trusteeship as strict as it is comprehensive. I shall be glad to hear from the noble Viscount when he comes to reply if he agrees with that. It is an extremely important point regarding the policy of this country when we are a Mandatory Power dealing with a mandated area.

Then M. de Caix, on behalf of the French Government at the meeting at Rome in 1926, made this statement as a general statement of the principles involved:— The Mandate is a provisional system designed to enable populations which, politically speaking, are still minors to educate themselves so as to arrive one day at full self-government. There, again, I should like to know whether the noble Viscount has any fault to find with that statement. It indicates quite clearly the position of trustee and trusteeship as between the mandated area and the Mandatory Power. If I might quote again from a well-known Governor-General—an English source, but all the better for this purpose—Sir Charles Fergusson, who was Governor-General of New Zealand, stated his view of the relationship between New Zealand as a Mandatory Power and Samoa as a mandated area. He said it was one of trusteeship, and he emphasised it in this way, that if there was a conflict of interest between the native interest and the interest of the Mandatory Power (that of New Zealand in this case) the interest of the natives was to take the dominant position. I have not the exact quotation, but this is the summary at the end of his speech. He says the only consideration is the ultimate benefit of the Samoan people. I should have thought that on that point, both as a matter of obligation and of honour, there could be no doubt.

As regards Tanganyika, a statement, reported in The Times on January 15 of this year, was made by Sir Donald Cameron, who said that he made the statement—and this is the importance of it—with the full authority of His Majesty's Government. His statement is absolutely contradictory of the statements I have read from Sir Charles Fergusson and from the other two great authorities, and appears to me to be entirely inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 22 of the Covenant. He says, as reported:— Tanganyika is a part of the British Empire, and will remain so. Does the noble Viscount say that a mandated territory is a part of the British Empire? Much less, I am sure, will he say that there is any necessity that it should remain so. These are matters of infinite importance as regards our honourable dealing with these mandated territories. Then, after saying that he has repeatedly stated to the chiefs and native inhabitants of the Territory that Tanganyika is a part of the British Empire, and will remain so, he adds: To them these words are a pledge. That is a very serious statement from the representative of a Mandatory Power to a mandated area, especially as he stated that he made the statement with the full authority of the Government.

I should like to ask the noble Viscount—because I am not dealing with this as a matter of political difference—whether in his view it can possibly be stated that a mandated area is part of the British Empire, or that any Government can give a pledge that it will remain so. Why, we are there as agents of the League of Nations; we are there to see that the obligations under Article 22 are carried out, and gradually to educate the natives so that they may become a self-governing community themselves. That does not mean a part of the British Empire. I am not suggesting that we should not carry out our duties, but one thing is quite certain, that, so far as the League of Nations are concerned, we can only properly represent them as long as we do carry out our duties, which are duties of tutelage to persons who are to have the benefit of a trust. And if the duties of tutelage are properly carried out—I do not suggest that they will not be—the sooner will the time come when the Mandatory Power will be no longer required, and the mandated area can stand on its own foundation and its own responsibility. Article 22 says that … this tutelage should be exercised by them"— that is, the Mandatory Powers— as Mandatories on behalf of the League"— the tutelage being the education of the native populations until they are ready for self-government. This, of course, is in the form of what is called Mandate B.

It is impossible to reconcile those two statements. Which is the right one? I can draw no other conclusion from the terms of Article 22 than that the right view is that expressed by Sir Charles Fergusson and M. de Caix and in the Colby Note. I have heard it suggested that M. Hymans, the Belgian expert on these subjects, had a different view, but I have read everything he has said, and his view seems to me to be precisely the same as that which I have quoted. On the 22nd of this month a printed Note was issued from the Dominions Office under the name of Mr. Amery, stating what their views are, and I want to know whether the noble Viscount concurs in the views so stated. It points out quite properly that the position depends on Article 22, and then it says:— Having arranged the allocation and delimitation of these territories as between themselves"— which had to be done, of course— the Governments concerned agreed to accept their respective Mandates and to exercise them on behalf of the League of Nations on the proposed terms"— of course, that is what we did— and the Mandates were then confirmed by the Council of the League. That is quite inconsistent with the statement made by Sir Donald Cameron, and said to have been made on behalf of the Government.

Then the Note goes on to say:— The Mandates do not contain any provision for transfer to another Power. No, they do not; they have not been transferred to any one as a matter of fact. The Mandatory Power for the time being holds them on behalf of the League of Nations, and if such conditions arise that the trusteeship can be no longer continued other arrangements have to be made. Then we come to the particular point of the Tanganyika case. The Note continues:— Article 10 of the Tanganyika Mandate authorises the Mandatory to constitute the territory into a Customs, fiscal, and administrative union or federation with adjacent territories under his own control, provided that the provisions of the Mandate are not infringed. Quite so, but what is the meaning of that, having regard to the statement of Sir Donald Cameron? Does it mean that really and in truth we are only agents for the League of Nations for this purpose, and that our only duty is to administer the Territory within the provisions of the Mandate? Or does it mean that we have the Imperial power to do what we like, to administer the Territory in such way as we like, and to give a pledge that we will remain there for ever, and deal with it for ever as part of our general Empire?

The Note also goes on to point out that in some cases the mandated territories are to be governed as integral parts of the Mandatory Power's neighbouring territories"— which, of course, shows that they are not a part of the Empire. The obligation is that for the purpose of administration, and for that purpose only, they may be regarded as integral parts of the Mandatory Power's neighbouring territories. I cannot myself see any answer to the quotations I have given, and what I want to ask the noble Viscount is this: Does the Government agree with this representation, which was said to have been authorised by the Government, that Tanganyika is a part of the British Empire and will remain so?

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, the noble Lord will allow me very respectfully to say that he has given exceedingly short notice of this Question; indeed it did not appear on the Paper until this morning.

LORD PARMOOR

No, but I gave you notice.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

It is quite true that the noble Lord spoke to me yesterday evening on the subject, and he says he told me he was going to raise the question of Tanganyika. No doubt he did say so, but I did not so understand him. These verbal conversations are perhaps not a very convenient method of giving notice of an important matter. And the noble Lord, if he gave me notice, gave to the House no notice of his intention, beyond what appears in this morning's Papers. I am sure the noble Lord will not misunderstand me if I say that. I do not think that this is the most convenient way of raising a Question of this importance.

LORD PARMOOR

If the noble Viscount had indicated to me that there would have been the slightest inconvenience, knowing his great knowledge of these matters, I should have postponed the Question. He indicated the contrary.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I did not say anything at all. The noble Lord told me he was going to raise the Question, and of course I said I would do my best to answer. I did not know in the least what he was going to say. The noble Lord first read a number of statements as to the meaning of Article 22. I am sure he will understand that it will be quite impossible for me to assent to statements that I hear across the floor of the House as to the meaning of Article 22. In its broad lines I think the meaning of Article 22 is quite plain. The Government accepts all the obligations implied by Article 22, and has no desire whatever to stretch its rights in mandated territories beyond those given to it expressly by the acceptance of the Mandate under the terms of that Article. The noble Lord read the earlier passages of the Article, among them the phrase that these territories were to form "a sacred trust to civilisation," and that this tutelage should be exercised by the Mandatories on behalf of the League. Well, those words speak for themselves; I do not know that any commentary by even very distinguished Governors will make them much plainer than they are as they stand.

It is suggested that there was something in a statement made by the Governor of Tanganyika which was not quite in accordance with those provisions. The matter has been the subject of Question and answer, as the noble Lord is well aware, in the House of Commons. The Question was asked whether the Governor of Tanganyika Territory stated that Tanganyika was part of the British Empire and would remain so, and whether the Government accepted that view. I will not read the whole of the answer made by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Dominions, but what he said was that strictly speaking, of course, it is not true that mandated territories are part of the British Empire. The inhabitants are not British subjects, for instance. He says in the most specific way that Mandates are obligations which we have undertaken towards the League of Nations. There is no doubt about that. The position is quite clear.

But it is also true that, when you are speaking of such a Mandate as the Mandate under which we hold Tanganyika for the purposes of administration, it does not convey a very false impression to say that the administration is part of the British Empire; that is to say, necessarily it is carried on by the British Government; there is no other way in which it can be carried on. I quite agree that if you are going to make the statement before one of the bodies at Geneva as to the exact position which you hold you would never think of saying that mandated territories were part of the British Empire; but, when you are trying to convey to native populations, who are anxious about their future, some assurance that they may be quite satisfied that the administration which they are under at present will continue, I do not think it is a very grave matter that the Governor, speaking in what I dare say was the most intelligible way to the audience which he was addressing, should describe the Territory as part of the British Empire, and should say that it would remain so. He gave them an undertaking that, as far as the British Government were concerned, they had no intention of abandoning their administration of the Mandated Territory. I cannot see anything myself to object to in such an assurance being given, if it was desirable for local reasons. Beyond that I really do not know what it is that the noble Lord complains of.

LORD PARMOOR

I asked the noble Viscount whether that was accurate.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I have explained that it is not, strictly speaking, accurate. It entirely depends on whether you look upon it from the point of view of a trust for the benefit of the inhabitants or from the point of view of the administrative duties that fall on the Government. From the point of view of the administrative duties it is part of the general governmental system of the British Empire, and is administered necessarily as part of that. Of course, that does not in any way diminish or cut down the obligation which we owe under the Mandate to administer this Territory under the conditions which we have undertaker, and for which we give an account every year to the League of Nations. There is no intention whatever of cutting down or diminishing that obligation, and I am sure that my right hon. friend would be the last person in the world to desire to do so.

As to the question of who is the owner of the territory in a mandated territory, that is an exceedingly difficult question. I do not pretend to have a very decided opinion upon it. What happened? These territories were renounced by Germany, not in favour of the League of Nations, but in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers. They passed, therefore, I imagine, to the sovereignty of the Associated and Allied Powers jointly; I imagine that was the effect of what was done. They have never transferred the sovereignty to anybody that I know of. What they have done is to agree among themselves that certain Mandates should be given to certain countries, and that arrangement was brought before the League of Nations. The conditions of these Mandates were discussed elaborately, both before the Council and before the Assembly of the League of Nations and, I think I am right in saying, were modified in some particulars, and, after being modified and discussed, they were accepted by the Mandatory Powers as the administrative bodies in charge of those territories. I dare say more skilled international lawyers would be able to give an answer, but personally I do not know exactly where the sovereignty of this Territory really lies. It seems to me a very difficult matter to say. Of course, it is of no great importance except from a theoretical point of view.

It is also perfectly true, as the noble Lord is aware, that these Mandates once having been given are irrevocable; that is to say, there is no power of revoking them conferred by the Covenant. They can be resigned but there is no power of revoking them. I do not understand what it is the noble Lord is so distressed about. If I knew I would endeavour to give him any assurance in my power. All I can say is that the Government fully recognise their obligations under the Covenant and, of course, they are determined to discharge fully their duties as defined in the Mandate. Beyond that I am afraid I can say nothing.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, perhaps I may say one word in reply. I think the noble Viscount says, in effect, that he agrees with my statement. At any rate he has not, I believe, found fault with the statement I made. If he agrees that it is not part of the Empire, no such statement ought to be made, and all the obligations ought to be regarded. I entirely agree with him that the Mandate creates the relationship of a trusteeship, but it is quite clear to my mind that in the statement which I read there is no suggestion of trusteeship but a statement of Imperial ownership in the very strongest terms.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

The noble Lord must not assume that. I gather from the answer given by my right hon. friend that there were earlier passages in the statement of the Governor in which he recognised to the full the obligations of a Mandatory.

LORD PARMOOR

Is it part of the British Empire?

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

It was before that.