Lords Sitting of 28 July 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.

HIS MAJESTY THE KING: MESSAGE FROM THE EGYPTIAN SENATE
THE LORD SPEAKER (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships that the Lord Chancellor has received a cablegram from Mahmoud Bassiouni, the President of the Egyptian Senate, of which the following is a translation:
"In its Session to-day the Egyptian Senate, by a unanimous vote, has authorised me to express to the House of Lords its most cordial congratulations on the occasion of the outrageous attempt on his life from which His Majesty King Edward VIII has happily escaped, and also its most sincere good wishes for the long reign of His Gracious Majesty and the prosperity and well-being of the great and beloved British nation."
The Lord Chancellor has sent a suitable acknowledgment to this.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
ABERDEEN CORPORATION (STREETS, BUILDINGS, SEWERS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ST. HELENS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("which") insert ("as amended")
Schedule, page 3, line 2, leave out ("thirty-nine") and insert ("thirty-seven").
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these Amendments. The Amendments are purely technical, and are put down because of the anticipated coming into operation next year of the Public Health Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEATHFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments agreed to, one Amendment agreed to with an Amendment, and a consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
HORNCHURCH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
BOGNOR REGIS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
ILFRACOMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
DALTON-IN-FURNESS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HEREFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MERTON AND MORDEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SOLIHULL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CROWN LANDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

CLEARING OFFICE (ITALY) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be considered. I had not intended to say anything at this stage because I thought that perhaps the most reverend Primate would first wish to make a statement. The Reason which the Commons give is the following:
"Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds by authorising grants for non-provided schools which would not otherwise have been lawful and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient."
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be now considered.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 108.]
Page 7, line 23, after ("will") insert ("whether directly or indirectly").
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
"Because the Amendment would involve, a charge on public funds by authorising grants for non-provided schools which would not otherwise hare been lawful and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient."
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as the noble Earl has intimated, you may perhaps expect me to say a word about the position of the Amendment which, on my motion, your Lordships were pleased to carry. I am well aware of the amount of feeling which has been engendered on this matter, both in another place and in the country generally. I confess I am quite at a loss to understand why this Amendment seems to have aroused this feeling. I cannot but think that it shows a singularly undue sensitiveness and a lack of a sense of proportion. But I admit that it may be due to a misunderstanding and to unguarded language on the part of particular friends of the non-provided schools. At any rate the misunderstanding is very obvious.

285
It has been apparently assumed that this Amendment which your Lordships were pleased to carry meant that public grants were henceforth to be allowed for junior schools generally. I was most careful in the speech which I made in proposing this Amendment to make it clear that any such extension of the building grants for junior schools was not in any sort of way within the scope or intention of this Amendment. To my mind it was a purely administrative matter arising almost consequentially from the provision of public grants for the senior non-provided schools. Your Lordships will remember the cases which were in view—cases where the reorganisation of an existing non-provided school as a senior school involved the displacement from that school of certain junior scholars hitherto accommodated within it. That would involve in its turn structural repairs at some neighbouring junior school that could provide places for the displaced scholars in the senior school.
To me therefore and to a great many other competent persons it seemed to follow almost as a necessary corollary that it was not fair that the whole cost of providing these structural alterations in a neighbouring junior school—a cost arising quite directly out of the reorganisation of the senior school—should fall entirely upon the managers of that junior school. I thought it was a most reasonable Amendment. Others closely concerned with educational administration thought the same. And I may remind your Lordships, as I reminded you then, that even when this was ruled out of order in Committee in the other House the Chairman himself said that he considered that it was almost involved in the original clause of the Bill. Therefore, when I spoke on this matter I could not conceive that any one would regard it as a question of principle, but simply as one of obviously reasonable administrative adjustment.
But I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that this misunderstanding has arisen, that this Amendment has been widely regarded as a breach of the agreement upon which the Bill was based. It is too late to prevent that misunderstanding, and I personally would be very loth to do anything which would menace the good will upon which the success of this Bill
286
depends. Moreover, the Government, I understand, in another place maintained that to accept this Amendment would mean withdrawing the Financial Resolution passed in another place and substituting another and that that would mean very great delay and obvious inconvenience. Lastly, this question of Privilege has been raised, and no proposal was made in another place to waive that question. I cannot think that it would be right at this stage of the Bill to enter into any contest with another place upon an obvious matter of Privilege. I think it would be different if this Amendment entered into a question of substance or principle and was not a question of administrative detail; but having regard to the misunderstanding which has been created, the peril which it might involve in the reception of the Bill, the raising of the question of Privilege in another place and my great desire that this Bill should not be longer delayed, but that it should pass as quickly as possible, so far as I am concerned I cannot take the responsibility of advising your Lordships to insist upon your Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I heard the speech of the most reverend Primate with regretful agreement. As he has said, this was a perfectly reasonable Amendment consequential on the provisions of the Bill, and well within the scope of the agreement, tacit or otherwise, under which the Bill was produced. But I am afraid the technical reasons against it are overwhelming. It is not solely a question of Privilege. We of course often have not hesitated to pass Amendments which were regarded by the Commons as a breach of Privilege. But the matter goes further. It would not be possible—and I speak with some experience on this point—for the Commons to entertain this Amendment. Indeed, it was ruled not to be possible for them without a new Financial Resolution in that House. Therefore we should be asking them to do something which they could not do without a most involved procedure which, for practical reasons, at this time of the Session would be hopeless. Therefore I think we can do nothing but acquiesce in the disagreement of the Commons.
May I now, as we are parting from this Bill, say just a short word? Those with whom I am associated recognise to the

287
full the good will of the President of the Board of Education and of his representative in this House. They have worked hard, and undoubtedly a great good will be done by the provisions of the Bill. I am sure—at least I certainly hope—every one will combine in order to make it a success. But of course it cannot be regarded as a settlement, and to do justice to the President of the Board of Education he never put it forward as a settlement. There cannot be a settlement so long as one particular form of religious teaching is privileged and endowed and other forms, to a greater or lesser extent, are penalised. We have the most anomalous position in England. For example, the Catechism I learned in my youth would be illegal in a council school. That of the Church of England would be illegal in a council school. The Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterians would be illegal. The Free Church Catechism is not illegal because it covers more than one denomination, and although those who believe in that Catechism have not attempted to get it taught, yet in fact they do get the particular kind of teaching that they want in council schools entirely at the public expense. They do these things better in Scotland, and I cannot help thinking that it is on the Scottish lines that a settlement will ultimately be sought and, I hope, found.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I need only very briefly thank the most reverend Primate and the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, for the most helpful attitude they have taken up. The Reason that was given by another place was that of Privilege, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, has reminded your Lordships, there was the additional reason of the Financial Resolution; but we know also that behind both these reasons lies something very much more than the technicality of Privilege or of the Financial Resolution. Quite apart from the fact that the carrying of this Amendment would kill the Bill, it would kill something, if possible, even more important, and that is the wonderful spirit of good will and compromise that has been shown throughout its passage. We know, of course, that the most reverend Primate did hope, when he was proposing this Amendment, that he might be able to carry his Free Church friends with him, but he has not been able to do so, and
288
he has therefore taken the very wise and, if I may say so, the very generous attitude of not asking your Lordships to proceed further in the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ASSYRIANS IN IRAQ.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY had given Notice that he would call attention to the decision of the Council of the League of Nations on July 4 that the proposed settlement of the Assyrian people in the Ghab area within the French mandated territory of Syria must be abandoned; ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the present position of the Assyrian people and as to the future prospects of their settlement elsewhere; and move for Papers.
The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, it is little more than four months since I brought the question of the Assyrian people to your Lordships' attention. I had hoped it would never be necessary to do so again, but I regret that circumstances have made this a necessity and that I am compelled once more to bring the position of this ancient and sorely-tried people to the attention of your Lordships' House, of the Government and, so far as may be, of the country. I need not now repeat the history of the Assyrian Church and nation or emphasise the claim which they have upon the sympathy and, I would add, the gratitude of this country, or the obligation which lies upon us to do all we can for their welfare. It is quite needless now to remind your Lordships of that past history, of the assistance which the Assyrians gave to us and to our Allies in the time of war, of the most brave and admirable service which their levies rendered when we had the Mandate for the Kingdom of Iraq, of the surrender of that Mandate by this country, and of the resultant deplorable massacre of hundreds of these people by the regular and irregular troops of the Iraqi Government.
These last events made it obvious, and the League of Nations was convinced,

289
that it was impossible for these unhappy people to remain any longer in Iraq. The result was that continuous endeavours were made to find some other home for them elsewhere. A friendly and final solution of the problem seemed to have been found, as was mentioned on the last occasion on which this matter came before your Lordships' House. There was a district known as the Ghab area on the banks of the River Orontes within the French mandated territory of Syria. An expert pronounced most favourably upon its suitability as a place where the Assyrians could live and where they could cultivate their crops and maintain their herds. The Council of the League of Nations approved; a Trustee Board under the League was appointed immediately to proceed to carry out the scheme. The financial obligations, which were large, were to be met by the promise of substantial contributions from the French Government, from the Iraqi Government and from the British Government. In the case of the last two Governments, these promises amounted in each case to £250,000. The League itself took the unusual step of offering a subscription from itself of £80,000.
There was every hope that this settlement would be at once begun. It brought an immense relief that, at last, it seemed that this long-tried people had found a permanent and suitable home. At the request of the League of Nations, and with the support of His Majesty's Government, your Lordships may remember that I undertook to issue a national appeal to supplement what had been given by the League of Nations and promised by the Governments. I at once proceeded to fulfil that undertaking. The appeal was launched at a remarkably successful and impressive meeting at the Mansion House, which was addressed by Mr. Eden, the Secretary of State, and by Sir Samuel Hoare. A Committee was at once appointed with Mr. Amery as its Chairman, and it began its work. Alas! all these hopes have now been dashed to the ground.
A letter was received from the French Foreign Office by the Council of the League of Nations on June 23, which stated that very serious difficulties had arisen and that it was more than doubtful whether they could continue their support of this scheme. On June 30 a
290
further and fuller declaration was made by the French representative to the Committee of the League. In this declaration it was plainly stated that it was impossible for the French Government to proceed with the scheme. Technical difficulties, of course, were alleged—difficulties as regards the finance of the scheme, as regards the acquisition of land, and as regards the delays which would probably be longer than had been anticipated. No doubt there was some substance in these difficulties, but it is admitted that in a short time they might have been overcome. There was no concealment of the fact that the real difficulties were not economic, but political. That was a fact definitely stated in the letter from the French Foreign Office and in the French declaration.
I will trouble your Lordships with a brief quotation from that declaration of the French representative where he says:
"The technical difficulties would not, of course, be in any way affected; those that have made themselves felt since the beginning of the work, and which are essentially duo to causes independent of human diligence, can no doubt be overcome. The political difficulties, however, would appear in all their force under the new conditions; indeed, they would grow more proportionately acute with the withdrawal of the salutary barrier constituted by the care of a Government determined to pursue objectively the true interest of the country and to secure a harmonious balance between them. For these reasons the French Government considers that what seems likely to be the increased pace of the political development may henceforth prevent the effective execution of a scheme which, though difficult—indeed, risky—from a technical point of view, was well worth undertaking in view of the great and lasting advantages it would bring to the areas involved and at the same time to the Assyrian tribes …."
The letter from the French Foreign Office of June 23 was practically in the same terms.
I think the reasons of these political difficulties are well known. The Government will correct me if I wrongly interpret them. The disturbances in Syria last February were due, of course, to the increased activity of Syrian Nationalists, sharing in that outbreak of nationalist feeling which is now characterising the whole of the East. This led the French Government, and rather especially the new French Government, to contemplate much sooner than it had

291
originally contemplated the surrender of their Mandate to a national State. There was the precedent always before their eyes of our own surrender of our Mandate in the kingdom of Iraq to a national State in that country. It was plain that any settlement of the Assyrians within that area, and any jurisdiction or influence of an outside body like the League of Nations, would be bitterly resented by the Syrian Nationalists, and, as the French Government appeared to contemplate within a very short time the surrender of their Mandate to these Syrian Nationalists, that Government, to quote their own words, "cannot see their way to lay so heavy a mortgage on the inheritance that she bequeathes." It is not for me to criticise or even comment upon the policy of the French Government. That is a matter of their own responsibility, but I think it is permissible to say that they might at an earlier stage have intimated that these political difficulties were likely to arise. But there is no good purpose now in offering criticisms of that kind. The decision which they have reached must, I fear, be accepted. This was the conclusion of the League of Nations. On July 4 they received and debated a full report by their Committee, and the Committee recommended that the plan of settlement in the Ghab area must be definitely abandoned.
It is needless to emphasise that this decision brings with it a most bitter disappointment. It brings disappointment to the young Patriarch of the Assyrians, Mar Shimun, who now realises that all his hopes, which seemed to have so strong a foundation, are shattered, and the prospects which seemed so bright of at last finding a home for his people have been blotted out. It is a bitter disappointment to all the friends of the Assyrians in this country, and perhaps your Lordships will permit me to add not least to me personally who have for years had the burden of solicitude for these people upon my shoulders. I know that this disappointment is shared by His Majesty's Government. The Secretary of State expressed this clearly at the Council of the League. But there is one other man to whom I know it must bring an even greater disappointment, and whom I wish to mention in this connection with the greatest respect and gratitude, and that is Senor Lopez Olivan,
292
the present representative of Spain in this country. He has worked indefatigably for the cause of the Assyrians. He has visited Iraq, he has superintended and encouraged every possible scheme for finding a home for the Assyrians, and now he finds that all his efforts so far have been in vain. It is perhaps permissible for me to add to this sympathy with Senor Olivan in this matter our sympathy with him in the grievous and anxious troubles of his own country. I am very glad to know—I think I have been rightly informed—that in spite of the change of his position, and in spite of all these troubles Senor Olivan is willing to continue the work that he has done for the Assyrians in the League of Nations.
It is quite useless to conceal the fact of this deep and grievous disappointment. Out of it two urgent questions arise, and I hope that the noble Earl, who, I understand, is to speak for the Government, may be able to throw some light upon them. The first, of course, is the present position of these harassed people. In the first place there are those who are left in Iraq at the present time. I am informed that out of about 21,500 people 14,600 are determined to leave at all costs and about 7,000 are still doubtful. I trust that we can rely upon the Iraqi Government to take every necessary measure to give security and to promote the welfare of these people who are now necessarily, I hope only for a short time, left in that country. I would associate myself, and I think with confidence, with the hope expressed by the Council of the League, that during this anxious time the Assyrians who are left in Iraq will refrain from any action which might give cause for complaint regarding their conduct. Then, in the second place, there are the Assyrians already settled in large numbers and with the full consent of the Iraqi and Syrian Governments in the area of the Upper Khabur valley. At the end of 1935 nearly 6,000 Assyrians were settled there. It was agreed that 2,500 more should at once proceed from Iraq to the Khabur. I think 2,000 have already crossed and it was expected that the remaining 500 would cross by the end of September.
I was reading only yesterday a letter from a former officer of the Assyrian levies, to whom this country is so deeply indebted, describing his arrival in this region and the impression he formed. It

293
was an extraordinarily hopeful letter. He described in the most roseate language the way in which these people were settling down to the cultivation of their crops, and there seemed to him as he wrote every prospect of even this part of the settlement proving to be more successful than was supposed. What is to be the position of these people? I cannot think that they will have to be disturbed and sent back. I think the consequences of that would be unfortunate, if not disastrous. Yet their position is necessarily a precarious one. They are on the borders of the Iraqi and of the Turkish Governments, they are surrounded by many hostile tribes, and what I would like to secure from His Majesty's Government this afternoon is the assurance that they will make every endeavour possible to secure the protection of these people as long as they remain where they are. I would suggest that the present friendly relations between this Government and the Turkish Government furnish a very happy opportunity for obtaining some such assurance. Certainly we cannot bear to think that these 9,000 people should now be uprooted, at least until some new home for the whole people has been found.
The second urgent question then, is, what is to be the future of these sorely tried people? We cannot possibly, in any mood, however natural, of cynical impatience or weariness, leave them to their fate. The Council of the League has instructed its Committee to continue its efforts, to undertake a general study of the situation and to inform the Council, if possible in September, whether any settlement is practicable. The Secretary of State expressed determination so far as the British Government are concerned to continue their efforts. It may be perhaps permissible to quote his actual words:
"We must concentrate on the future and on making yet another effort to find a lasting and satisfactory solution of what has rightly been referred to as a 'work of appeasement and humanity.' In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the solution of this problem can only be found through the League on a collective basis, but the necessity for such a solution remains as urgent as ever in the interests both of the peace and tranquillity of the Middle East and of affording to an ancient and sorely tried people, the victims of the World War, the opportunity to make a new start in the best possible conditions. I need hardly add that His Majesty's Government in the
294
United Kingdom will continue their close collaboration with the Committee and will spare no effort to give it every assistance which lies in their power."
I earnestly hope that we may receive an equally clear assurance from the noble Earl to-day. Indeed, I would go further and hope that he may assure us that the Government will not only act as a Member of the League of Nations but will feel that they must take a leading place in the work of the League. I trust that we may hear that inquiries will at once be made of the authorities of our Dominions and Dependencies as to whether within the sphere of our Empire it may not be possible for us to have the privilege of finding a lasting home for the Assyrians.
So far as my own appeal is concerned, it must of course remain in suspense until the future is more secure. The Committee are eager and ready to continue their work and are relying upon what the Government may say this afternoon as to their future action, in the hope that they may be encouraged to continue their efforts. What I dread is that in the present confused, restless situation in the world, with anxious and insistent problems pressing in on every side, there may be a disposition to say that really at this present time we cannot any longer be troubled with the tiresome affairs of this little community. The obligations of honour cannot be limited by the number or importance of the persons who make a claim upon those obligations. It has always been the boast of this country that whenever any of its own nationals are in trouble they are entitled to the protection of their own country. It cannot be maintained, of course, that these Assyrians are in any sense our nationals, but equally it cannot be denied that we have a most real and special measure of responsibility for them. I submit that we cannot in this country, without dishonour, either belittle the reality of that responsibility or refuse to make every possible effort even now to secure for these unhappy people a haven where they may at last live in security and peace.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am indebted to the courtesy of the noble Lord who leads the Opposition for allowing me to precede him as I have to leave the House presently. I want to say only a very few words to reinforce the most eloquent and comprehensive plea which

295
the most reverend Primate has made on behalf of this unhappy community. I did not know until five minutes ago that this question was being raised at this moment in your Lordships' House. It is unnecessary for me to remind your Lordships of the support which the Assyrians gave us in the War, the wonderful work which they did for us after the War, the loyalty of their levies, or the value of this community not only to us but to any country which has the good fortune to enlist their services and their affections. They have had, as the most reverend Primate told us, almost the most tragic history in recent years of any of the unfortunate peoples left adrift out of the storm of the Great War. The most recent troubles they have been in on account of the difficulties of the Mandated Power in Syria are not the least of the disappointments they have suffered.
I have had opportunities both in their country and outside it for many years of following their destinies, and it so happens that recently I have again been in Turkey and have had an opportunity personally of observing with great happiness the improved relations between ourselves and our old Allies, the Turks. I have also had an opportunity of conversation with the distinguished head of that Government on this and several other questions. Whilst for several years past it has been difficult for some of us to understand the full nature of the difficulties which seemed to prevent the Turkish Government accepting the settlement of the Assyrians, yet to-day I feel very much encouraged by what the most reverend Primate has hinted to us about our improved relations with the Turkish Government and their known desire to help the Assyrians if so be they can do so with justice to their own nationals. I hope that His Majesty's Government can be persuaded to reopen the question of the settlement of the Assyrians in the Hakkiari area, an area, I should remind your Lordships, which is entirely suitable in every way: it is very nearly empty to-day and its peacefulness, though perhaps new, is now complete.
It seems to me that that would be the best solution. It always would have been the best solution: that area of Hakkiari is their own country and their own climate, and they will be among their own peoples. I have
296
always hated the idea that this splendid community should be given to any other people. I have indeed wished we could have retained them ourselves. But here is a community—I vouch for it—who will be as loyal to a civilised and reformed Turkish Government as they would be to any other government. They will be a source of no difficulty. On the contrary, the Assyrians will be a source of as great strength to the Turkish Government as they would have been to the French Government if they had been able to go into French territory. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not tire in their representations to the Turkish Government but will once again take up the question of the Hakkiari area, and that the most reverend Primate's noble and eloquent appeal will find a successful issue in that solution.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I desire to intervene for a moment or two only. It is not always my fortune to find myself almost exactly in line with the most reverend Primate, but on this occasion I can unhesitatingly support the appeal he has made. Hoping that he will not take amiss this word from me, I will venture to exhort him to greater faith in this matter. I think he was extremely pessimistic in his outlook. I believe that the point of view put by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is a very hopeful line of advance, and I venture to suggest that there are other hopeful lines that might be pursued by the representatives of the Government, with the most reverend Primate's immense influence and support, when the matter is being considered as a whole.
In the first place I want to suggest that we have not explored the possibilities of settlement in Iran. I noticed, when this matter was discussed in connection with the Armenians at the League of Nations in, I think, 1928, the then Persian representative who spoke on that occasion pointed out that Persia had helped enormously in connection with the settlement of the Armenians, and indicated that they had always found a refuge there and had lived happily and prosperously. As the northern part of Iran is so close to the Mosul area, where the Assyrians with whom we are concerned are situated, and as there are chances of industrial development on the shores of the Caspian which might demand an increase of settlement, it

297
would be to the advantage of the Iran Government if that line were pursued. In this connection, I had considerable dealings with the Iran Government in connection with the settlement of a certain number of German refugees. I found that Government most helpful, and eventually a considerable number of these refugees—admittedly specialists—were accepted by the Persian Government and are now occupying various positions in that country. Possibly that line might be worth pursuing in addition to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and of the most reverend Primate, that we should exploit the increased friendship between this country and the Turkish Government in an effort to make possible better treatment for the Assyrians.
I want to dwell for a moment upon another point. To us the problem is a comparatively small one when we consider the terrific problem of the Armenians in the past. While, of course, it is true that several millions of them, or however many it may have been, were massacred, which is unfortunate, nevertheless the settlement of the remaining Armenians offers great hope if we try to explore the same sort of line and the same type of avenue. Let me remind your Lordships that, so far as the Armenians were concerned, all hope was abandoned in 1922 when the late Lord Curzon—speaking in this House, I think, though I am not certain—said that the proposal to settle the Armenians in Erivan was quite hopeless because Erivan was utterly poverty-stricken and already overstocked. The League of Nations, however, did not give up hope, and the following year they reopened this project and appointed Dr. Nansen to examine the possibilities of Erivan. Dr. Nansen came back and pointed out that with the irrigation of the Sardarabad area it would be possible to settle 50,000 of these people. He could not, however, raise the money.
I think appeals were launched in practically every country, and in this country the Lord Mayor's Armenian appeal was, broadly speaking, a complete failure as far as Erivan was concerned. The British Government at that time were not prepared to accept the guarantee by the Erivan Government of the principal and interest on loans, and explained that they were not prepared to put any money into
298
this irrigation scheme of Dr. Nansen's because they had already given so much money to the Armenian problem elsewhere. As the result of this action the whole business came to an end, and we became as hopeless concerning the Armenians as we are perhaps feeling now as regards the Assyrians. But what happened? In 1928 complete hopelessness; nothing could be done, nobody had any idea, nobody could make a single suggestion. Yet four years later we found that, after the peoples of the world had failed to contribute any money to this great scheme, the Erivan Soviet Government themselves adopted the recommendations of Dr. Nansen and Sir Murdoch Macdonald, who had been out to report on the scheme; carried out the whole work on their own, and settled in that area without any further question more than 20,000 Armenians.
This was a most remarkable development, renewed hope arising suddenly out of hopelessness all over the world. In 1932 no less than 8,000 were settled, and the number reached the total of 20,000 by 1934. The story is extraordinary. The Erivan Government took charge of these people from the moment they landed in Batoum, gave them free railway passes up the Sardarabad valley, let them in without any Customs duties, exempted them from military service and gave them free land. The Greek Government paid the cost of transport across the Black Sea for most of them, and, although the Bulgarian Government were unable to help, private enterprise in Bulgaria and elsewhere came to the rescue and provided clothing and the necessary doctors' services. These people are now settled. Moreover, the matter is not concluded, because only on May 9 this year nearly another 2,000 of them left Marseilles, arriving in Erivan three weeks later. And, oddly enough, The Times correspondent, who visited Erivan a few days ago, writing in The Times on the 21st of this month, pointed out that he had seen these newly repatriated Armenians, whole families, who had been refugees in Greece and France, building their own flats, running their own silk factories, and constructing their own canals from the central canal built by the Government, and boasting that next year they would have canals and silk factories twice as big. In other words, out of the utter hopelessness of the position a few

299
years ago there had emerged this successful and hopeful scheme.
In Erivan there are not only Armenians but some Syrians, and I wonder if it might not be possible, considering the limited extent of the problem—considering how few are these people—that we should try to make easier the settlement by dividing the problem among different areas. If we got Erivan to take a few, and Iran to take a few, and if by agreement with the Turkish Government we could get a settlement for the remainder, the problem would then become of much more manageable proportions. I hope therefore that the most reverend Primate will not close down his efforts but will continue the good fight—for it is a good fight—and not only bring pressure to bear on our representatives at Geneva but, through them, on Geneva itself, so that the office may seek with renewed hope these new possibilities, and bring us to as successful a solution for the Assyrians as that which we so largely owe to the Soviet Government in regard to the Armenian problem.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I too shared with the most reverend Primate the hope that when we discussed this matter in February last it would probably be one of the last debates that we should have on the subject. The only expectation I had of any further debate was that the most reverend Primate might at intervals ask for a progress report, and that a satisfactory reply would be possible on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Unfortunately, our hopes have been dashed, as he said. I know how bitter a disappointment it is to him after the hard work that he has done, and no less so to members of His Majesty's Government, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and, I might even add, to myself, who has had some share, however small, in this question. In particular I would like to associate myself with what he said with regard to Senor Olivan, who as President of the Assyrian Committee has worked so strenuously on this question. I understand that Senor Olivan will continue in his present position with regard to that question, and it is a matter of congratulation, because we know how much he has the subject at
300
heart. It will be satisfactory to know that his duties as Ambassador here will not prevent him from continuing this work in the future.
As the most reverend Primate knows, I cannot go so far as he goes with regard to the obligations of this country towards the Assyrians. As I said before, we had many allies in the last War, of which the Assyrians were one portion, and if we are going to have such obligations as the most reverend Primate suggests in regard to every one of those allies our obligations will tend to become overwhelming. We, of course, attempted to assist the Assyrians after the breakdown of the Russian front, and we have spent several millions in an endeavour to put them on their feet. We also, partly for our own protection and partly to assist them, put, some of them in the levies that we raised in Iraq. Although I entirely agree with what was said by Lord Lloyd with regard to the services which they have rendered in Iraq, I do not want to say that our obligations in that connection are more than those of very sincere friendship for this small people, or that we should feel that we have obligations which transcend the obligations which we owe in other parts of the world.
The most reverend Primate was wrong, I think, in one small detail which he gave, and that was with regard to the time when it was proposed to give up the French Mandate in Syria. It was not the present French Government but their predecessors, the Sarraut Government, who proposed that, and, as the most reverend Primate said, of course, the circumstances came to a head with tremendous rapidity, as happens in Eastern affairs. There was the strong nationalist sentiment which began to arise. When the matter was discussed in this House on February 11 the French Government and the League Committee, and therefore of course the British Government, had reason to believe that the French Mandate was going to continue for a considerable period—the French Government thought for at least five years. That would have got us through a great part of our difficulties—particularly the question of getting hold of temporary land on which we hoped to place the Assyrians while the big engineering works in the Ghab Valley were being

301
carried through and completed. We hoped to get 8,500 hectares of land for a period of five years for a total rent of 450,000 French francs. When nationalist sentiment began to pile up and come to a head—I speak from what I heard from representatives of the French Government at Geneva at the beginning of this month—others came forward to redeem mortgaged land, and the whole situation was completely changed. At one moment the League Committee was faced with the position of having to try to find accommodation for these people on 300 hectares of land. The best the League Committee could do was to receive promises for only 4,000 hectares of land, but at a price which was more than three times as great as that suggested for the original area. Of course the whole of the budget for the transfer of the Assyrians from Iraq was thereby rendered much more difficult.
But, as the most reverend Primate quite rightly pointed out, it was not the financial difficulty, or the engineering difficulties or the like, which have brought the scheme to an end. It was solely the political difficulty. The French said that if they had been holding the Mandate for the whole period when the settlement was being made, then they could have controlled the whole situation, they could have got the engineering works finished, and the Assyrians put on temporary land pending settlement in their permanent home. They could have got them established and in the position of being taxpayers and assets to the area, in which case no Government would have felt inclined to break up that asset and bring it to an end.
On March 1 the French High Commissioner announced publicly that the French Government were prepared to consider forthwith the conclusion of a Franco-Syrian Treaty on the lines of our Treaty with Iraq in 1930. That was almost immediately followed by representatives of the Syrians going to Paris to discuss with the present French Government a plan for setting up self-government by the Arabs in that area. And in the talk that I had at Geneva at the beginning of this month a representative of the French Government described to me how the country was going to be divided into three portions, and how the Arab delegation in Paris, who of course had no authority from anybody in Syria to
302
form a Government, would return to Syria, hold an election, as a result of which a Government would be formed, and proceed to draw up a treaty, which would be signed. Although of course there would be some inevitable delay in bringing that to a conclusion, it is quite obvious that the French control over that territory would last a very great deal less than five years. That being so, the French Government, as we think with great frankness, came forward at the Committee of the Council and said that they really felt that under the new conditions they could not think that there was any real chance of success if the Ghab scheme were proceeded with.
The present situation is that the Committee has been requested by the Council of the League to continue its work, and the Committee has definitely decided to do so. Our view is that, although this is a very serious set-back, it is a check and not an abandonment of the whole scheme. His Majesty's Government feel—and I think the Council of the League still feel—that the situation cannot be allowed to rest where it is. We have to make a real effort to settle these unfortunate people in some area other than Iraq. It has been suggested, I think by the noble Lord opposite, that we might consider further the question of Iraq, but the difficulty there is, as he knows, that there was very serious trouble some two years ago, and therefore neither the Syrians nor the Iraqis look with any friendly eye on the Assyrians continuing in that country.
As regards those who are left there, I think I can assure the most reverend Primate that we can be fairly satisfied with the situation at the present moment. As he knows, the Iraqi representative at the Council of the League gave a definite pledge in that respect. He used these words:
"It is needless to repeat what my predecessors have always asserted, that until such a satisfactory solution has been found the Assyrians in Iraq will continue to enjoy full security, and will find the Government as concerned about their wellbeing as it has ever been."
Both His Majesty's Government and the League Council have every hope and belief that that pledge will be most faithfully observed. As regards the Assyrians in the Khabur area, to which the most reverend Primate also referred, I was rather puzzled about his reference to an appeal from this country to Turkey

303
because, as he knows, the Khabur area is in Syria.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I meant on the borders.
EARL STANHOPE: Yes, it is on the borders of Turkey, but it is quite definitely in Syrian territory, and therefore, unless there was some actual aggression on the part of Turkey, the matter of course would not arise. I know what the most reverend Primate was referring to. The Turks have raised an objection to having Assyrians close to their borders, and so also have the Iraqis, but I hope that the situation now is not quite so serious as it was in that respect. There is every reason to believe that objection will not be raised to the Assyrians remaining in that area, at any rate until some other is found. The suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite that we might get this difficulty more reasonably settled if we were able to divide up the Assyrians is one with which I entirely agree, but unfortunately it is one with which the Assyrians entirely disagree. They insist upon being kept together, if possible, as one people, and the one thing that they would object to more than anything else would be to being divided into packets amongst various countries. I think it may well be possible that with the more friendly feeling that Turkey is showing towards other peoples, and in particular with her friendship to this country, possibilities now arise which would have been quite out of the question a few years ago.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd spoke about the possibility of the Hakkiari area being reconsidered, and I entirely agree with him that in many ways that would be the most suitable if it is possible. It is not very far from the mountainous country in which those Assyrians who have left the question as to whether they should remain inside Iraq or not to their tribal chiefs, are at present living. These tribal chiefs, we understand, are rather opposed to moving from their present areas in the extreme north of Iraq, and therefore if the remainder of the Assyrians did succeed in finding a home in the Hakkiari area it would perhaps be not so far distant as to cause any grave doubts among the Assyrians as a whole that they would be split up and divided into fractions. That is a matter which the Committee of the Council will have to consider, as also
304
the possibility of placing them in and around Erivan. We have really to comb the world for suitable sites, and they are not so very easy to find. These are a people accustomed to a mountainous area. They probably would not thrive in a tropical area such as that of which a large part of our Empire consists. They are very fine soldiers but do not get on with everybody. Altogether it is not a very easy question.
As regards numbers, as the most reverend Primate said 2,000 further Assyrians have moved into the Khabur area, making a total now of 8,000, and there are the further 500 of which he spoke, which are coming over with their flocks and herds round about the month of September—because that is the best time for driving the herds over the desert. That will make a total of 8,500. Apart from them there are about 12,000 who have opted to move to the Ghab area and these 7,500 of whom I have already spoken who left the question of transfer to the heads of their tribes. Whether there would be as many as 12,000 or more than 12,000 if it were some other area than the Ghab it is impossible to say. But I understand that very few people among the Assyrians opted to remain in Iraq, apart from those 7,500, and therefore it could not be very much more than 20,000 if some other home were found. The situation is eased in Iraq because those who have already moved to the Khabur area were those who were most indigent, and who were the unemployed among the Assyrians. Those who are left behind are somewhat more prosperous, and that has made the situation easier in Iraq.
The most reverend Primate asked that we should take the lead on the Assyrian Committee. He will not dispute my remark that perhaps we have taken the lead throughout. I know that those who represent us on that Committee have worked extraordinarily hard, particularly so at the beginning of this month, and we have not the smallest intention of doing any less in the future than we have done in the past. I am afraid I cannot go further than that because, as the most reverend Primate knows so well, these matters are still under consideration. There are many problems in front of the Committee. I can only say that His Majesty's Government are most anxious that a satisfactory solution shall be found. Although we fully appreciate the necessity at this

305
moment of holding up the appeal which the most reverend Primate was so good as to make, we hope it will not be closed down, because I have every belief that some satisfactory place will be found and I am afraid that money will be necessary from private sources in the future as it has been in the past. I have no Papers to lay, but I hope I have answered the most reverend Primate's questions.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, may I say first of all how grateful I am to the noble Lord opposite for the generous and sympathetic speech which he made about these people? I think the only misreading of their feelings that he made was the one to which the noble Earl has alluded—namely, the great desire of this community, for special historical reasons, to remain as far as possible in the unity of their one headship and one religious allegiance. That is what makes it difficult merely to scatter them about in one place or another. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for what he has been good enough to say. I have no doubt of his own interest in the matter nor indeed of the interest of His Majesty's Government, and I am very glad to hear that they will make every effort to find a solution. I noted that he did not rule out as quite hopeless the possibility of negotiating about the recovery of Hakkiari as a possible area. That is a sign of hopefulness which I cherish, though I am not quite so hopeless as the noble Lord opposite seemed to think. I did not want to appear to be too hopeful lest His Majesty's Government should be too remiss, but as we have heard from the noble Earl that the Government and the Council of the League of Nations will, so to say, comb the world till they have found some place for the Assyrians, I am very grateful and certainly have no intention to press my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SPANISH WARSHIPS AT GIBRALTAR.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether warships of the Spanish Navy, acting under the orders of the Spanish Government, called at Gibraltar for supplies of fuel
306
and/or provisions during the rebellion in Spain; if so, whether they were refused supplies, and for what reason?
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, I beg to put the Question standing in his name on the Paper.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, there were six Spanish warships on the 22nd of this month anchored in the Port of Gibraltar, and they were taking in fuel from an oiler belonging to the Spanish Government. Permission was given for these ships to obtain fresh provisions on shore. During the night of the 22nd all these warships, except a torpedo boat, left Gibraltar. Therefore there was no further question of providing oil fuel, but if the Spanish Government choose to negotiate an ordinary transaction with any commercial firm, His Majesty's Government would feel that such a transaction was purely a private matter, and not one in which they were concerned in any way to use their influence one way or the other.
I would remind the noble Lord that a British oiler was bombed in the Straits of Gibraltar—I think on the night of the 22nd—by rebel aeroplanes. Probably it was thought that that British oiler was going to supply oil to the Spanish Fleet. In point of fact it was on its way home to England. Of course it must be realised that those firms who own oilers are not very much encouraged to provide oil to the Spanish Fleet when they are likely to be met with a reception of that kind. Still less will His Majesty's Government feel inclined to press the matter on commercial firms. It is purely a commercial arrangement, and the British Government do not come into it in any way. Therefore if a firm is satisfied that it can safely provide oil, and that it will be paid for it, there is no reason why it should not do it. As the noble Lord knows, Government supplies are in a different category. The oil belonging to His Majesty's Fleet is there for the benefit of the Fleet, and of the Fleet only. We are not of course traders. I do not mean to say that, occasionally, oil is not provided, but that is more in a case of emergency, possibly to save life at sea or something of that kind. That is not an ordinary transaction in which we sell oil to any one, whether a Government or anybody else.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. It would appear then that the oil tanker was not a Government vessel but a private vessel, and therefore it was entirely within their discretion whether they sold oil or not. As to the bombing incident, it may be that the rebels were tempted to bomb this vessel in anticipation of its supplying oil to the Spanish Government.
EARL STANHOPE: This vessel had nothing whatever to do with the Spanish Fleet. It happened to be an oiler passing through the Straits on its way home to England when they tried to hit it. The only oil supplied to the Spanish Government was the oil from the Spanish oiler.

THE RECESS.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, may I ask the noble
308
Earl whether he has any statement to make in regard to the business of the House and with reference to the date of re-assembly after the Recess?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not think I have any statement in regard to future business other than appears on the Paper. In regard to the Summer Recess, which is a question I suppose that interests the noble Lord opposite as it interests most of us, the Government propose that the House should re-assemble on Thursday, October 29. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued on that date and that His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, November 3.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past four o'clock.