THE NAURU BILL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12082, 19 June 1920, Page 5

THE NAURU BILL.

DENOUNCED IN JSRIU'A&N. .%,

EfrDOKoED SI COMMONS' AFTER

WARM ..DEBATE

Unied Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.

LONDON, June 17

A renewed discussion on the question of the utility of the League of Nations to which the Nauru debatecontributed shows increasing- candour and pessimism. "The Times" in an editorial describes as a pompous farce the League's offer of mere sympathy to Persia, accompanied by advice to the Persian Government to await the result of Russia's promises. It is enough to provoke world-wide Homeric laughter, following as it did the Hat refusal of the Soviet authorities to admit to Russia the League's investigating committee. The League merely threw upon the Soviet Government the entire responsibility which it refused to accept. "The Times" believes that only malice could involve the crippled League in situations at present beyond its strength. Knough has already been done almost to kill it. The AngloFrench must try to nurse and protect it, while awaiting help from America. The "Manchester Guardian" suggests that the Nauru deal weakens the authority of the League to which the world is entitled to look for assistance* in reconstruction work and the maintenance of the open door. The "Westminster Gazette" fears the League may be stifled in its cradle. It declares the Nauru Bill stupid and unprincipled as it creates a precedent for defeating the leading principle of the. League and offers our rivals a working model for evasions. In the House of Commons the Nauru Bill was read a second 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 and so delaying its progress, was defeated by 218 to 57. Mr Wilson expressed the opinion that there would be no difficulty in maintaining an output of four to five hundred thousand tons yearly at a cost enabling Australia and New Zealand to obtain phosphate at about £1 per ton cheaper than at present while providing for repayment of capital and interest. Britain would also benefit, . though to a less extent, owing to the distance. He was fully convinced that there was never a sounder investment for Britain. The Empire was securing for ever all the important raw materials for rejuvenation of our land, the demand ' for which must inevitably increase in the future. Mr Ormsby Gore moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it conflicted directly with the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations in regard to the open door principle in trusteeship of the mandatory powers. VERY STRONG OPPOSITION FROM LEADING COMMONERS (Received Saturday, 1.20 a.m.) LONDON, June IS. Mr Oswald Moseley seconded the moton for the rejection of the Bill. Sir John Nees supported the Bill on the ground that it was good business. Lord Robert Cecil said the House was asked to give a decision which might have very far-reaching effects. The policv of mandates was most important. The Bill was absolutely inconsistent with Article 22 of the League of Nation's covenant, and 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 the open door. He urged that ti lP Bill be not proceeded with till the League of Nations laid down the rights of mandatories. Mr Asquith said a most important -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 22 that a mandatory should use its power' in ord'M- to secure a monopoly of the riches of the mandated country. It was impossible to conceive of a worse example. He earnestly trusted Government would reconsider the posi-

tion. .„ Mr Bonar Law pointed out that 11 the Bill were not passed the Phosphate Company would have all the rights which the Government was claiming-. Nothing would be lost by transferring the rights and powers of the company to the British Empire. He emphasised the fact that other part*? of the Empire had been consulted before an agreement was reached The British Empire delegation at Paris had considered the subject. It was difficult to please everybodv but an agreement was reached as being the best under the circumstances.' The sanction of Parliament to the agreement did not preclude the League of Nations from refusing to confirm it. The Government asked the House of Commons ' at present to ratify the agreement ment proposed to make a fair use ot it. He had no doubt l the League of Nations would agree to it. Si Donald McLean opposed the Bill on the ground that it violated our obligations under the League of Nations. . . .. „ Air Bonar Law, interrupting, pointed out that there were two distinct questions, firstly the administration of a territory, which the League of Nations was perfectly entitled to see was done properly, secondly the purchase of a trading company, which was not a subsect that would tome under the League of Nations at all.