NAURU BILL

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 227, 19 June 1920, Page 7

NAURU BILL

SECOND READING CARRIED

ATTEMPT TO DELAY MEASURE'S

PROGRESS DEFEATED

THE EMPIRE'S NEED OF PHOSPHATES By Telegraph—Presß Assbciatton-Copyrlgni '■■•'■■• (Eec. June 19,' 1.45 a.m.) London, June 17. In the House of Commons the Nauru Bill was read'a second timo by 217 votes to 77, the minority comprising the Labour momhers, Independent Liberals and some.. Unionists. . An attempt to commit the Bill to committco of the whole House,' so delaying its progress, was defeated by 218 votes to 57. Colonel Wilson expressed the opinion that there would be no difficulty in

maintaining an output of 100,000 to 500,000 tons yearly, at a cost enabling Australia arid New- Zealand to obtain phosphate at about £1 per ton cheaper than at present, while providing for the repayment of capital and interest. Britain would also benefit, though to a less extent., owing to distance. Mr. Watt, before resigning the Treasureship of tho Commonwealth, liad carefully considered the matter, and was satisfied that • the purchase price of-3J millions sterling was reasonable. Colonel Wilson said ho was fully convinced that there was never a sounder, investment for Britain. The Empire was securing for ever all-im-portant, raw materials for the rejuvenation of oiir land, the demand for which must inevitably increase in the future. Captain OrinsbyrGorp moved tho rejection of. the Bill on the ground that' it conflicted directly .wifti the' Articles'of tho Covenant •of tho League of Nations in regard to the open-door principle in the trusteeship of mandatory Powers. Captain Gore said tho . Bill. proposed to establish an irresponsible administration in Nauru, and a gigantic State monopoly, competing with other phosphato countries of the world. As mandatories of the? League of Nations; was this going to apply also to Mesopotamia oil? They must know what rights the mandatories had over tho naturaL resources of mandated territory. Captain Goro declared that this mandate was conferred on the British Bmpirevnnd it would be a .gross violation of our whole Imperial arrangements to confine the mandate to tome self-governing Dominions and the Mother Country, and to exclude all other parts oi the Empire. Lieutenant Oswald Mosley seconded tho motion for rejection.

Pir Jolmßees supported the Bill on the ground that it was good business. Lord Robert Cecil said the Houso was asked! to give a decision which might have very far-reaching effects. The policy of mandates" was most important; The Bill was absolutely inconsistent with Article 22 of the League, of Nations Covenant, nnd would give a handle to our enemies throughout . the world. It would set a fatal example; It would' not be possible for us subsequently > to insist upon an open door. He urged that the Bill be not proceeded with till tho League' of Nations had laid down the rights of mandatories. .' Mr. Asquith said a most important question of principle \was involved. Where a mandato was . given the League should completely control all its provisions from first to last. There was no idea under Article ,22 that a. mandatory should use ils power in order lp secure a monopoly of the riches of tiie mandated country. It was impossible to conceive of a worse example. He earnestly trusted that the Government would reconsider the position.

Mr. Bouar Law pointed out that if the Bill was not passed a phosphate company would have nil the rights which the Government was claiming. Nothing would, bo lost by transferring tho rights and.', powers i>\ 'tho • company to tho British Empire, lie emphasised the fact that other parts of the Empiro were consulted before the agreement was reached. The British Empiro delegation at Paris considered tho subject. It was difficult to please everybody, but the agreement was reached ps being the best in the circumstances. The sanction, of Parliament 'to the agreement did not preclude the' League of Nations from infusing to confirm it. The Government asked the House of Commons at present to ratify the agreement. The Government proposed, to, make fair use of it. He had no doubt,the League of Nations would agree to it, Sir Donald .51ofilean opposed the Bill on the ground that-it violated our obligations under tho League of Nations. Mr. Bonar Law interrupting, pointed out that there were two distinct questions—firstly, the administration of the territory, which tho League of Nations was perfectly entitled to see was done properly; secondly, tho purchase of the trading company, which was not a subject, that would come -iidcr the League of Nations'at nil.—Pouter.