THE NAURU BILL.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 1844, 19 June 1920, Page 5

THE NAURU BILL.

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS. STRONG OPPLonIUN SHOWN. By Electrio Telegruph.-Copyright •LONDON, June hj. In the House 01 Commons, Uk Nam Bill was .road, a second time by 217 vott

to 77, the minority comprising Labourite*, Independent-Liberals and aorne Unioniis. An attempt to commit the bill to a i < inmittec oi the whole House and so delay its progress was defeated b' 218 votes to ii 7. Colonel Wilson expressed the opinion that

there would be no difficulty iu maintain..* tin output of Jour to five hundred thousun ron.-; yearly at a coat enabling Australia .tn •Si w Zealand to obtain phosphate at aboi:

&1 per ion cheaper than at present, will! providing for repayment of capita) ..n interest. Britain would also benefit, io a less extent, owing to the distant* He was fully convinced that there vvt never a sounder investment for Britai.

Ihe Empire, was securing for ever all ill important) rurt materials for the rejuvena tion of our laud, the demand fcr wllicl must inevitably increase in the future. Captain Ormsby-Gore moved the rejectioi of the Bill on the ground that it conflict.'. directly with the articles of the Covenant o the League of Nations in regard to tl;. open door principle in trusteeship of tin mandatory powers. Jle said that the- Bii proposed to establish ii'ci-poiisible adm'ii istration in Nauru and a gigantic St:.s

monopoly competing with the other phosphate countries of the v.oild as mandatories of the League of Nations. Was this going to apply also to .M sopotamiun oil? They must know what rights mandatories had over the natural resources of the mandated territory. Captain Ormsby-Gcre declared that this mmdiite was confeired on the British Empire, and it would be a gross violation of our whole Imperial arrange - ments to confine the mandate to some selfgoverning Dominions and the Mother Country, and to exclude all other parts of the Empire. Lieut. Oswald Mosley seconded tin motion.

Sir John Noes supported the Bill on lh' ground f hat it was fcood business

BILL INCONSISTENT WITH LEAGUE Lord Robert Cecil said the House was asked to give a decision which might have very far-reaching effects The policy of mandates was- most important. The Bii! waa absolutely inconsistent with Article 22 of the League of Nations' Covenant, ■ and would give a handle to cur enemies throughout the world. It would set a fatal example, for it would not be possible for us subsequently to insist upon the open door. He urged that the Bill bo not proceeded with till the League of Nations laid down the rights of mandatories. Mr Asquith said a most important ques tion of principle was involved. Where :: mandate* was given the League should com pletely control all its provisions from first to last. There was no idea under Article 22 that a mandatory should use its power in order 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 tho position. LOSS.IF BILL NOT PASSED.

Mr Bonar Law pointed out that if tin Bill were not passed the Phosphate Com pany would have all the rights which the Government was cluimh.g. Nothing would be lost by transferring the' rights pnd powers of tho company to the British Em pire. He emphasised, the fact that othe.' parts of tho Empire had been consulted before an agreement w.is reached. The British Empire delegation at Paris had considered the subject It was difficult to please everybody, but a.i agreement was reached as being tho best under the circumstances. The sanction of Parliament to the agreement did not preclude tho League of Nations from refusing to confirm it. Tin Government asked .the House of Commons at present to ratify the agrecnn nt. The Government proposed to make a fair use of it He had no doubt the League of Na-

ions vvould agree to it. Sir Donald McLean opposed the Bill < n

lie mound that it violated our obligationnder the League of Nations. Mr liouar Law, interrupting', pointed out

that there were tw » distinct questions, firstly the administration of a territory, which the L ague of Nations was norfertlv entitled to see was done properly; and secondly, the purchase of a trading company, which was not a subject that would come under the League of Nations tit all.—(A. and N.Z. cable)