FUTURE OF MANDATES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 109, 8 April 1936, Page 9

FUTURE OF MANDATES

SPEECH BY THE CHANCELLOR. ■ UNEASINESS PROVOKED. FEAR OF WEAKENING. (United Press Association— ; By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received April 8. 9.55 a.m. < LONDON, April 7.

In the House of Commons several speakers asked Mr Eden what the Government’s attitude was regarding Germany’s demand for colonies. Mr Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that so far as he knew no one had ever asked or suggested that the British Empire should give up any of its colonies. Such a demand could not be entertained for a moment. As regards the mandated territories they could not be held by Britain alone. The Government recognised its obligations to the mandated territories and would not think of handing them over to any Power, even for the sake of a general settlement, unless it was satisfied that the interests of the inhabitants were safeguarded. He believed that the ■ transfer of -any mandated territory could only be accomplished with the assent of the mandatory Power concerned and the League Council. The Sun-Herald Service says that the uneasiness over the mandated colonies increased as a result of Mr Chamberlain’s statement, particularly the latter part: “Britain would not hand over her mandates to other Powers unless it was satisfied that the interests of all sections were fully safeguarded.” A series of questions has been tabled in the House of Commons seeking enlightenment. A section of the House fears that the Government is weakening in the face of Germany’s pressure. The Daily Herald says the interpretation placed on Mr Chamberlain’s speech was: “Britain is prepared to consult the League for the transfer of mandates to their former owners under certain conditions.” NO POWER OF TRANSFER. IN ORIGINAL PLAN. OBLIGATIONS TO INHABITANTS. (British Official Wireless.) Received April 8, 11.25 a.m. RUGBY, April 7. During’ the House of Commons debate both Mr Winston Churchill and Sir Austen Chamberlain asked for a clear and authoritative statement on the Government’s attitude in regard to colonies and mandated territories. Mr Churchill said Sir Samuel Hoare’s speech concerning raw materials, though carefully guarded, brought up the whole colonial question. He asked if the Government could state the principles by which they could be guided in dealing with this matter lii future. Mr Neville Chamberlain, replying to the questions, pointed out the distinction between colonies and mandated territory. Mandated territories were in a somewhat different category, These territories, formerly belonging to enemy Powers, were allocated to the principal allied and associated Powers, who voluntarily undertook the mandate under the League to which, from time to time, they were bound to render n report on their administration. It was not apparently contemplated when the mandates were allotted that there would ever he any change ot these mandates. There was no provision made for the^transfer to any other Power. In order to effect a transfer there would be required the assent of the mandatory Power and of the Power to whom the territory was to be transferred and, finally, also of the Council of the League. The British Government had not onsidered, and were not considering, handing over of any of the Britisii colonies or territory held under mandate. He could not pledge the action of the future Governments. “In addition, we do recognise that we have definite obligations to the people who inhabit these territories, and that we could not think of surrendering those obligations or handing handing over those territories to another Power. Unless we were satisfied that the interests of all sections of the populations inhabiting those territories were fully safeguarded,” Mr Chamberlain added.