NAURU ISLAND

Southland Times, Issue 18854, 21 June 1920, Page 5

NAURU ISLAND

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE.

BILL SEVERELY CRITICISED. (By Telegraph.—l-re*s Assn.—Copyright., (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. 1 LONDON, June 17. In the House of Commons the Nauru Island Bill was read a second time by 217 to 77, the minority comprising Labour, Independent Liberal and some Unionist members. An attempt to submit the Bill to a committee of the whole House, so delaying its progress, was defeated by 218 to 57. Colonel Wilson expressed the opinion that there would be no difficulty in maintaining the output of 400,000 to 500,000 tons of phosphates yearly at a cost enabling Australia and New Zealand to obtain phosphate at about .£1 per ton cheaper than at present, while providing for the repayment of camt-1 and interest. Britain would also benefit though to a less extent owing to distance. MS- Watt, before reWpning the Treasurership of the Commonwealth, had carefully considered the matter, and was satisfied that the purchase price, £3,500,000, was reasonable. Colonel 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 the 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 Nation* in regard to the open-door principle in the trusteeship of mandatory powers. Mr Gore sa>l the Bill proposed to establish an irresimnsible 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 Mesopotamian oil? They must know what rights the mandatories had over the natural resources of the mandate territory- Mr Gore declared that this mauqate 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. Lieutenant Oswald Mosley seconded the motion for rejection.

Sir John Rees supported the Bill on the ground that it would he good business. Lord Robert Cecil said the House Has asked to give a decision which might have very far-reaching effects. The policy of mandates was very important. The Bill was absolutely inconsistent with Article 22 of the League of Nations covenant, anil would give a handle to our enemies throughout the world. Il would set a fatal example and it would not be possible for us subsequently to insist upon an open floor. He urged that the Bill be not proceeded with till the League of Nations had laid down the rights of mandatories. Mr Asquith sail! the most important question of principle involved was 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 order to secure a monopoly of the riches of the mandate country. It was impossible to conceive a worse example. He earnestly trusted that the Government would reconsider the question. Mr iionar Law pointed out that if the Bill was not passed the Phosphate Company would have all the rights which the Government was claiming. Nothing would he lost by transferring the rights and powers of the company to the British Empire. He emphasised the fart that other parts of the Empire had horn consulted before the agreement was reached. The British Empire delegation at. Paris had eon-iderod the subject. it was difficult to please everybody, Put the 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 [louse of Commons at present to ratify the 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 opposed the Bill on the ground that it violated our obligations under the League of Nations; firstly, the administration of the territory which the League of Nations was perfectly entitled to see was done proj>erly ; secondly, the purchase of the trading company, which was not a subject that should come under the League of Nations at all.

WORLD'S RICHEST DEPOSIT OF PHOSPHATE.

(Reuter's Telegrams.! LONDON, June IS, (Received June 20, 5,5 p.m.i In moving the second reading of the hill confirming the agreement between the Imperial and Australian and New Zealand Governments regarding Nauru, Colonel I mile Wils-m emphasised the richness of the phosphate deposits on the island. Hr said that the natives keenly desired to re main under British rule. Colonel Wilson also emphasised (he urgency of the need for more phosphate in view of the work! shortage of wheat in 1010. and the exhaustion of the soils. He quoted an estimate in a report to the New Zealand Parliament that there were at least 80,000,000 to 100.000,000 tons of phosphate on Nauru which was believed to be the largest reserve of high grade phosphate rock in the world, while the deposit at Ocean Island was believed to he deeper.

J Commander Kenworthy maintained that owing to the distance between Nauru and the United Kingdom, the arrangement j voyld not he a good commercial proposi- ( tioti for Britain. 1 Colonel Leslie Wil-on. replying, stated ' that before the war Germany took all the phosphate she coulrl pet at Nauru to Stettin and even greater dritan"? than to Britain, and the company paid between twenty five am' fifty per rent, dividends.

Sir Newton Moore congratulated the Government on the arrangement, which he said would be of the greatest value to agriculture and would mean cheap wheat in many countries.

Several members repeated the Oneosltlon argument regarding the League of Nations aspect of the question.