NAURU MANDATE.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 June 1920, Page 1

NAURU MANDATE.

DISCUSSED DM COMMONS.

(By’ Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (Received this day at 8 a.m.j i LONDON, Jlune 17. In the Commons, the Nauru Dill was read a second time by 217 to 77 the minority comprising Labourites, Independent Liberals and some Unionists. The attempt to commit the Bill to the Committee of the whole house, so delaying its progress was defeated by 218 to 57. Mr Wilson expressed the opinion tnat | there would be no difficulty in maintaining the output of four to five hundred thousand tons yearly at a cost enabling Australia and New Zealand to obtain phosphate at about £1 sterling 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. Mr Watt before resigning. treasureship of the Commonwealth had carefully (considered the matter and was satisfied the purchase price of 3J millions sterling was, reasonable. Mr Wilson said he was fully convinced there was never a sounder investment for Britain. The Empire was securing for ever all the important raw materials for the rejuvenation of our land, the demand for. which must inevitably increase in the future. Mr Ormsby Gore movel 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 the trusteeship of mandatory powers. Mr' Gore said the Bill proposed to establish irresponsible administration in Nauru and a gigantic State monopoly competing with other phosphate countries of the world. As mandatories of the League of Nations, was this going to apply also to Mesopotamia oil. They must know ivh-it rights mandatories had over the natural resources of mandated territory. Mr Gore declared this mandate was conferred on the British Empire, and it would be a gross violation of our whole Imperial arrangements to confine he mandate to some of the self-governing Dominions and the ’ Mother Country and to Exclude all other parts of the Empire. Mr Oswald Moseley second the motion for the rejection. Sir John Nees supported the Bill, on flie ground that if was good business. Lord Robert Cecil said the House I was asked to give a decision which might have a very far-reaching effect on the policy of Mandates. Tt was a most important- hill and was absolutely inconsistent with Article 22 of the -League of Nations covenant, and would give a handle to our enemies throughout the world. It would set a fatal example. It would ot he possible for us subsequently to insist upon the open door. He urged that the Bill he not proceeded with till the League of Nations laid down the rights of mandatories. j j Hon. Asquith said a most important question of principle was involved. Where a mandate was given the League should completely control all its irovisions 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 is impossible to conceive of a worse example. He earnestly trusted Government would reconsider the position. Hon. Bona-r Law pointed out that i f the Bill were not passed, the Phosphate Company would have . all <he rights which the Government were claiming. Nothing would be lost by the transferring of the rights of -he powers of the company to the British Empire. He emphasised the fact ;hat other parts of the Empire were consulted before the agreement was reached. The British Empire delegation at Paris considered the subject. It was difficult to please everybody. ' But the argument Was readied as being the , iesr under tbe circumstances. The sanction of Parliament to the agreement did i 't preclude the League of Nations from refusing to conform it. Government asked the Commons at present- to ratify tlie agreement. Government proposed to make fair use of it. He had no doubt the League of Nations .would agree to it. Sir Donald Mac-Lean opposed the Kill on the ground that it violated our obligations under the League of Nations. Hon. Bonar Law, interrupting, pointed- out there were two distinct questions, firstly the administration of the territory which the League-, of. Nations was perfectly entitled to see was done properly and secondly tlie purchase < f the trading company which was not a subject that would come under the League of Nations at all