NAURU MANDATE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18439, 19 June 1920, Page 9

NAURU MANDATE.

I OPPOSITION TO BILL. /' DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF r COMMONS. %y Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. Reuter's Telegraais. \ (Received Juno 19, 1.20 a.m.) LONDON, June 18. In the House of Commons the Nauru Hill was read a third time by 217 to 77, the minority comprising Labourites, Independent Liberals and some Unionists. An attempt to commit the Bill to committee of the whole House, so delaying its progress, was defeated by ■2lB to 57. Mr Wilson expressed the opinion that there would be no difficulty in maintaining an output of 400,000 to 500,000 tons yearly at a cost enabling Australia nnd New Zealand to obtain phosphate at about £1 per ton cheaper than at present, while providing for repayment if capital and interest. Britain would ■ilso benefit, though to a less extent, pwing to distance. Mr Watt, before resigning the Treasurership of the Commonwealth, had carefully consid* ©red the matter, and was satisfied-that the purchase price of three and a half millions was reasonable. Mr Wilson paid ho was fully convinced that there Kn« never a sounder investment for Britain. The Empire was securing for ever all-important raw materials for the rejuvenition of our land, tho demand for which must inevitably increase in the future. Captain Ormsby-Gore moved the rejection of the Bill, on the ground that it conflicted directly with articles of the covenant of "the League of Nations in regard to the open-door principle in tho trusteeship of mandatory powers. He said the Bill proposed to establish an. irresponsible administration in Nauru and a gigantio State monopoly, competing with other phosphate countries of the world. Was this going to apply also to Mesopotamia oil? They must know what rights mandatories bad over the natural resources of mandated territory. He declared that this mandate was conferred on the British Empire, and it would be a gross violation of our whole Imperial arrangements to confine the mandate to some self-governing dominions and the Mother Country and to exclude all other parts of the Empire. Mr Oswald Mosley seconded the motion for rejection of tho Bill. Sir John Nees supported the Bill, on the ground that it was good business. Lord Robert Cecil said that the House was aßked 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 Twentytwo of the League of Nations Covenant and would give a handle to our enemies throughout the world. It would sofc a fatal example. It would not he possible for us subsequently to insist upon the open door. He urged that tho Bill should not be proceeded with till the League of Nations laid down the rights of mandatories. Mr Asquith said that a most import- • Jnfc question of principle was involved. Where a mandate was given the League should completely control all its provisions from first to last. There was no idea under Article Twenty-two that the mandatory should use its power in Drder to secure a monopoly of the riches of the mandated country. It was impossible to conceive of a worse example. He earnestly trusted that the Government would reconsider the position. Mr Bonar Law pointed out that if the Bill was not passed the Phosphate Company would have all tho rights which the Government was claiming Nothing would be lost by transferrin the rights and powers of the company to the British Empire. He emphasised the fact that othor parts of the Empire were consulted before the agreemnt was reached. The British Empire delegation at Paris considered the subject. It was diffioult to please everyhody, but the agreement was reached as being the best under the circumstances. The Banotion of Parliament to the agreement did not preolude tho League of Nations from refusing to conarm it. The Government asked tho House of Commons at present to ratify v ,he agreement. The Government proposed to make fair use of it. He had no doubt the League of Nations would agree to it. Sir Donald Maclean apposed the Bill on the ground that it violated our obligations under, the League of Nations. Mr Bonar Law, interrupting, pointed out that there were two distiftrt questions : firstly the administration of the territory, which tho League of Nations was perfectly entitled to see was done properly; secondly, the purchase of a trading company, which was not a subject which would come under the League of Nations at all.