Monday, 21st December, 1925.

The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills he amended as follows:—

22. Leave out ("and in Ireland the local and road authorities shall be the district councils and the county councils respectively").

24. Leave out ("or Ireland").

26B. Leave out paragraph (1).

Leave out ("also").

29. Leave out paragraph ( e).

30. Leave out ("if in Ireland at the Irish Office").

33. In paragraph (3) leave out ("or Ireland"), and leave out ("or the Irish Office as the case may be").

In paragraph (11) leave out ("or if the property is in Ireland at the Office of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland").

In paragraph (12) leave out ("England, Wales or Ireland") and insert ("England or Wales").

36A. For the words ("Expenditure for any permanent works proposed to be executed") there shall be substituted the words ("Expense of any work or purpose described in the Appendix marked (C) proposed to be carried out"), and for the words from and including ("The Estimates shall be in the following form") to and including the words ("the probable life of the works") there shall be substituted the words ("The Estimates shall be in the form set forth in the Appendix marked (C) or as near thereto as circumstances may permit, and no other Estimates shall be required from the promoters").

38. Leave out the whole Order.

57. Leave out ("or with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland if the work is intended to be done in Ireland").

60. Leave out ("or Ireland").

Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").

61. Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").

63. Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").

65. Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").

66. Leave out the whole Order.

77. Leave out ("or in Ireland").

89. Leave out ("or Ireland") where those words first occur, and leave out ("for England or Ireland as the case may be").

93A. Leave out first ("adjournment") and insert ("recess'').

Leave out ("on which the House sits after the adjournment") and insert ("after the recess on which the House sits for business other than Judicial Business'').

111. Leave out the whole Order.

114. Leave out ("[the Queen's Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland or the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court [in Ireland]") and insert ("[or the King's Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland]").

Leave out ("Scotland or Ireland") and insert ("or Scotland").

115. Leave out ("or the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court [in Ireland]").

116. Leave out ("or Dublin").

135. Leave out the whole Order.

155. Leave out the whole Order.

169. Leave out the whole Order.

170. Leave out the whole Order.

174. Leave out ("or in Ireland").

181. After this Order insert—

^* The Estimate should be accompanied by an Engineer's Report as to age, extent, condition, and value of the works, divided under suitable headings").—( The Earl of Donoughmore.)

Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and No. XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting.—( The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

Moved, That the Order which was presented on the 25th day of June last be approved with modifications.—( The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question; Motion agreed to.

BOLLINGTON GAS ORDER, 1925.

TAMWORTH GAS ORDER, 1925.

WORTHING GAS ORDER, 1923.

Moved, That the Draft Special Orders which were presented on the 1st instant be approved.—( The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, That the Draft Special Order which was presented on the 1st instant be approved with modifications.—( The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

HELENSBURGH ELECTRICITY
SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.

LEYLAND ELECTRICITY SPECIAL
ORDER, 1925.

NORTH BERWICK ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.

PONTYPOOL ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925

WEST WILTS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.

Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 1st instant be approved.—( The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Motion agred to.

Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 1st instant be approved with an addition.—( The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Earl of Clarendon's Amendment to the Motion of the, Viscount Peel (moved on Tuesday, December 8), That the Special Order which was presented on the 15th day of July last be approved—namely, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "having regard to the decision of a Select Committee of this House upon the Horley and District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill (H.L.) the Special Order be not approved."

Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Clarendon to withdraw his Amendment.—( The Earl of Clarendon.)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to, and the Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fifth Report from the Select Committee.

The Committee reported as follows:—

1. REASSESSMENT OF (BALANCE OF) CIVIL PAY OF CERTAIN CIVIL SERVANTS WHO SERVED WITH H.M. FORCES DURING THE GREAT WAR.

The Committee considered the Report of the Sub-Committee appointed to consider the petition of certain doorkeepers for the payment of bonus as part of their civil pay during the War, and decided, having regard to the opinion of the Sub-Committee that there is no legal claim, that no action should be taken upon the petition.

2. LIBRARY SUB-COMMITTEE.

On the recommendation of the Library Sub-Committee, the Committee sanctioned the arrangements proposed for the preservation of the Warrant for the execution of Charles I.

3. REGISTRAR OF THE CHAPEL OF ST. MARY SUB VOLTÂ.

The Lord Great Chamberlain informed the Committee that having established his authority over the Chapel of St. Mary Sub Voltâ (the Crypt Chapel), he had appointed a Registrar for the Chapel. The Committee expressed their approval of the arrangements made for the payment of fees at the existing rates and other incidental matters.

4. FURNITUPE FOR THE HOUSEKEEPER'S ROOM.

On the representation of the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Committee sanctioned the expenditure of £9 13 s. 6 d. for a new carpet, etc., for the Housekeeper's room.

5. RESIGNATION AND APPOINT MENT.

The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the resignation of Mr. Courtenay C. H. Healey from the Parliament Office, and that Mr. Henry Montagu Burrows had been appointed as a Junior Clerk in his place, his appointment to date from November 16th, 1925.

6. RETIREMENT OF A PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER.

The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod informed the Committee that Mr. C. Chapman, a principal doorkeeper, is due to retire on the 12th of February next, and will then have given thirty-one completed years in the service of the House. His pension under the Superannuation Act, 1909, calculated on a salary of £206 15 s. per annum, will amount to £S0 2 s. 4 d. There will also be a Supplement under the Treasury agreement amounting at present to £41 2 s. 2 d. but this Supplement is subject to quarterly revision. He will also receive an additional allowance of £316 11 s. 4 d. calculated on his salary. together with 75 per vent. of the current bonus.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Firstly, I do not feel satisfied, from the statements which have been made far on behalf of the Government, that the economy is so large, so sound, or so real, as it is asserted to be. I do not venture to criticise the decision on +be ground of policy; though it is but fair to say that even after the surrender of the German Fleet, which has been taken as the turning point at which the usefulness of Rosyth may have ceased, the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Beatty, made a statement on September 13, 1919, at Dunfermline, on the occasion of his being presented with the freedom of that City. These arc tile words he used—

"The future, which affects all of us. is not quite clear. But I take leave to say that the great dockyard at Rosyth, which has been built up at a cost of much effort, at the cost of much money, which is the most efficient and up-to-date dockyard in existence, must be maintained."

I fully realise that circumstances may alter, and have altered, and that the noble and gallant Earl who now holds

the responsible post of First Sea Lord is fully entitled to review an opinion even so positively expressed as that which I have quoted; but to the layman it does seem strange that, when economies are proposed, the dockyard which has been stated on the highest authority to be "the most efficient and up-to-date dockyard in existence" should be the first to be scrapped. Had the proposals of the Admiralty been more courageous and included one or more of the older and less efficient English dockyards, I should have felt less inclined to offer any criticism. It is, however, Scotland and Wales that have had to bear the brunt of the economy proposals.

I do not propose to say any more on the policy of the decision. We are told that the decision has been come to after careful consideration by His Majesty's Government. We know it has the blessing of the noble and gallant Earl, and that it has been confirmed by a large majority in another place. I would, however, ask your Lordships to consider for a few moments the proposed economy in a little more detail, to examine the soundness and reality of the economy, and particularly its effect upon the locality. In the White Paper which has been issued by the Admiralty, in explanation of the reduction, very little information is given, but I wish to point out two admissions in that Paper which are important when considering the question from a national as distinct from a departmental standpoint. The first is that the savings enumerated are purely departmental; that they take no account of possible or even certain increases in the expenditure of other departments contingent upon the closing of this clock-yard. It is true that some of them are mentioned in the White Paper, but there is no definite estimate of such offsets against the estimated savings.

May I illustrate my meaning on this head by figures? The estimated annual saving on the reduction of the two yards of Pembroke and Rosyth is stated to be £328,000. No separate allocation has been given to the individual yards, but I understand that for Rosyth the estimate is between £160,000 and £200,000. As against this let us consider what, from the standpoint of national economy, has actually happened at Rosyth since the decision was arrived at. Up to December 7 the number of claims to benefit made by

ex-dockyard workers at the Dunfermline and Inverkeithing Exchanges was 315. Of these eighty-five had obtained other employment, leaving 230 still on the register. If this is the kind of proportion to which we must look forward, and the state of industry does not warrant a much more sanguine anticipation, your Lordships will realise what a very formidable offset this means to the estimated savings. Most of these men are married men with young families, and if one were to take the average figure of unemployment relief at a conservative estimate of 22 s. a week and the number of unemployed at the end of the period of reduction at 1,000—also a conservative estimate—we shall arrive at a burden on the national finance of £57,200 per annum.

Your Lordships are probably aware that the staple industry in West Fife is coal mining and in Dunfermline the manufacture of linen. The depression in the first of these industries is well known to your Lordships, and the position of the second is not much better, partly owing, no doubt, to the fact that many householders, including probably many of your Lordships, have abandoned the use of the fair linen tablecloth and now dine off hare boards. In the present state of these two industries it is impossible to look forward to any appreciable number of men discharged from the dockyard being absorbed into other work. It may be argued that this claim is not dependent upon the closing of a particular dockyard and that the discharges would have to take place in any case consequent upon the reduction of the naval programme; but I would maintain that the burden is increased in force and in extent by concentrating it in one locality, particularly when the industries of that locality are not in a position to absorb more labour.

On these grounds, therefore, I would urge the Government in the working out of their scheme of reduction to consider carefully this aspect and not to make light of the financial burden because it is placed upon another Department, or to lose sight of the moral effect of placing so many men on the unemployed list, both to themselves and to the community. Further, they should not forget the individual hardship and anxiety caused to the men and their families by this action, taken at a time of year when

household expenses are necessarily higher, and when the prospects of obtaining substituted work are necessarily more meagre. May I, therefore, conclude this site of the question by urging upon the Admiralty, on practical, financial, and sympathetic lines, to adopt the motto Festina lente in the discharges?

I will ask you now to look at another aspect of the case, the effect upon the district, and particularly on the burgh of Dunfermline. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with too much detail as regards the history of Rosyth, but, in order that you may appreciate the true position, it is necessary that I should refer to one or two facts in that history. Before the establishment of the dockyard Dunfermline was a town with a population of rather less than 20,000 in habitants, situated about two and a half miles north of the Firth of Forth at its nearest point, Rosyth. When the Government decided to establish a naval base at Rosyth they also apparently decided that it was impossible to have that dockyard administered by the County Council of Fife, and it was necessary that the Rosyth dockyard should be incorporated in Dunfermline. Under pressure, therefore, of two Government Departments—the Admiralty and the. Board of Health—Dunfermline put forward a claim for extension Of boundaries to include the dockyard. After a considerable fight this extension was given effect to, and an area of roughly three and a half miles from north to south, and three miles from east to west, including half of the estuary of the River Forth ex adverso was added to the burgh of Dunfermline. Evidence was then produced that, on the analogy of Portsmouth and other dockyards, it was anticipated that in the course of a few years an addition to the population of 40,000 might h expected in the burgh of Dunfermline, and Dunfermline was urged to provide the contingent services—roads, drainage, water and light. A vast town planning scheme was embarked upon, which cost a very large amount of money, but the irony of the situation is that when the houses came to be built they were built on Admiralty ground outside the original town planning scheme.

Your Lordships will not expect me to present at this time a detailed claim on behalf of the burgh of Dunfermline, but there are three items of expenditure on the provision of trunk services which will, I think, satisfy your Lordships that the clam of the burgh of Dunfermline against the Government must be fairly substantial. In the first place it was necessary to widen the roadway from Dunfermline to Rosyth. The sum expended on this was £21,812. Secondly, the provision of water mains for the new town and dockyard cost £28,290. This must he kept distinct from the provision of the actual water, which was supplied by the county council, and for which an agreement stands and holds. Thirdly, the proportion of costs of a new sewer attributable to the establishment of the dockyard amounted to £22,130. The total of these three claims is nearly £73,000. These are outstanding capital claims, and it can be shown, in addition, that the burgh of Dunfermline is called upon to pay for the maintenance and administration of the extended area an annual sum of about £13,000 over and above what it receives by way of rates and Government contribution in lieu thereof. If this is the position when the houses are all occupied it will be enormously aggravated when, as a result of the reduction in the dockyard, a large number of the houses are rendered tenantless.

I do not propose to go into the question of housing, because the. question is so complicated by inter - departmental guarantees and agreements, but this broad fact is clear, that on the reduction contemplated by the Admiralty several hundreds of these houses will cease to be occupied by dockyard workers, and will therefore become tenantless, or will have to be let to men employed elsewhere. There are two serious obstacles to the latter alternative: first, that the proportion of large houses, that is, with four rooms and over, is too great for the general needs of the locality, and, secondly, that the rents are very much too high. Hitherto the rents charged to dockyard employees have been on the average £22, but to outside tenants the rent has been in the neighbourhood of £40, and if this rata is to continue I think your Lordships will agree that it will he impossible to make use of the houses.

So far have dealt only with actual claims which have been submitted to the Admiralty by Dunfermline for work done: but it is fair to take into account the capital slink on other public services. The education authority has spent over £100,000 on the erection and equipment of schools. The parish council has spent a very considerable sum in the provision of cemeteries; and in addition to the provision of purely public services large amounts have been spent in providing churches and halls by the different denominations. The new population at Rosyth being mainly English, a gallant effort was made by the Bishop of St. Andrews to provide a suitable church, which has been erected at a cost of over £18,000 and which it is hoped will be open for use early next month. Several other denominations have also erected permanent buildings. Two masonic lodges have been erected by the enterprise of the local Freemasons at a cost of about £6,000, and about £85,000 has been spent in tramways and electric cables. Is it just and fair that no recognition should be made by the Government for these and other similar outlays if they are rendered useless by the action of the Government? And if recognition is to be made by way of compensation, surely it must be counted against the estimated departmental saving.

Finally, I would venture to press the noble Earl who will reply for the Admiralty to say exactly what is meant by "a care and maintenance basis." If, during six years when the dockyard has been on full equipment, it has sunk from being the most efficient and up-to-date dockyard in existence to the category of being the first to be scrapped, is it conceivable that on a care and maintenance basis expenditure will be incurred adequate to keep it really efficient or up-to-date? I venture to say that under such conditions the dockyard would soon become derelict, and the payment of a staff to keep it in that condition would be extravagant. The proposal to reduce the dockyard to a care and maintenance basis seems to me to savour too much of a dog-in-the-manger policy. If the dockyard is really superfluous it would be far more practical to take a more courageous course, to cut a large part of the capital cost, and use every means to make the dockyard in its present state up-to-date with power, plant and equipment available for a commercial enterprise.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that this Question is a very technical one and could be more clearly explained by a lawyer than by a layman like myself. The position is as follows. Where, prior to January 1, 1926, land has been sold subject to a rentcharge for life or other family charge and such charge is still subsisting on January 1, 1926, it would appear that as from that (lay the land will, by virtue of Section 1, subsection (1) (v) and Section 2 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, be settled land, the subject of a compound settlement of which there will be no trustees for the purposes of the Act. If so the purchaser will cease to be an absolute owner subject to a charge and will become a person having the powers of a tenant for life under the compound settlement. He will not be able to deal with his property until the necessary vesting deed has been executed, which cannot be done until trustees of the compound settlement have been appointed. This will involve an application to the Court. Moreover, on a resale by the purchaser the purchase money will not be payable to him, but to the trustees of the compound settlement, who will not be able to part with it so long as the charge subsists, even though the original vendor has given an amply sufficient indemnity against it. A release by the person entitled to the charge will not be practicable in every case and it is not clear that a release executed after December 31, 1925, will he effective to remove the objection and in any case such a purchaser will be put to inconvenience and expense.

I therefore ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to introduce an amending Act immediately to remedy the position in which such purchasers will find themselves. What is really necessary is a short Bill saying that paragraph (v) of subsection (1) of Section 1 shall not apply to conveyances completed before December 31, 1925.

It was only quite lately brought to my notice that this subsection of Section 1 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, which comes into force on January 1, 1926, is causing anxiety and confusion among past purchasers and those who are negotiating the purchase of land and houses. I am told that solicitors are receiving thousands of letters each day and some of their staffs are not large enough to deal with those letters on this question. These letters often come from past purchasers who are not their clients, and as the vendor is the client I wonder who is to pay the cost of the replies. Many purchasers are quite poor people and they will be put to great inconvenience and expense unless the Act is altered. One estate may have sold thousands of plots of land to different purchasers, all of whom are affected by this question. If these difficulties can he put right by means of documents then, with all respect. I would ask who is to pay for them?

The first, question that I want to deal with is that of Mosul. This is a question of extreme immediate importance. There is a suggestion that we may come under an obligation that will be in operation for a period of twenty-five years regarding the frontier between Iraq and Turkey. We have to recollect in this matter—and I shall have to call your Lordships' attention to one or two phrases in the Covenant of the League of Nations—that Great Britain is not acting on her own behalf or for her own advantage, but as a Mandatory, as a representative of the League of Nations under Article 22 of the Covenant. Her first duty as a Mandatory is to provide as far as possible for the good government, security and peace of the people who are placed under her charge—in this case the people of Iraq, who live to the south of the frontier line which is now being laid down as the proper boundary between Iraq and Turkey, by the Council of the League.

The first point that I wish to make is this. I do not think that this good government and security can be attained in a district of this character unless there is good will and friendliness between this country and Turkey. I shall have to call attention later to the Report of General Laidoner, who has shown quite conclusively that some of the evils of which he specially complains have taken place north of the line, and therefore in the territory which will be left within the sovereignty of Turkey. I shall have to

come back to this point a little later and a little more in detail, but it appears to me that no protection can be given to the people called the Nestorian or Assyrian Christians that can really be effective unless Turkey and Great Britain can co-operate together in a kindly and friendly spirit.

The second point to which I wish to call attention in connection with Mosul is that, as I understand the suggestion contained in the decision of the Council, which I gather that we have intimated our willingness to accept, the settlement., whatever it may be, may and probably will endure for a period of twenty-five years. I think that this is altogether too long. I think it is a mistake which is likely to lead to endless trouble in the future to lay clown such conditions upon such a frontier and in such E. region as that of the boundary between Iraq and Turkey, and to attempt to foresee even what is likely to be practicable for so long a time as twenty-five years. No one knows how conditions may have been changed within that period. No one knows how, twenty-five years hence, we may regard obligations of this character and, more particularly, no one, I think, will be able to say that such an obligation, undertaken for such a length of time, can be foretold to be of advantage to the Iraq people. That, as I have said before, is the main consideration and point of view from which this question ought to be approached.

When this matter first came forward at Geneva, I occupied the position of British Delegate to the Council and it fell to my lot to recommend to the Council the Mandate which is now in operation. It was accepted unanimously in September, 1924, after considerable discussion. The only objections came from Persia and those objections were arranged to the satisfaction of the Council of the League. Everyone was agreed at that time as to the proper terms of the Mandate that ought to be accepted as regards the Iraq people. I should like particularly to call attention to one matter upon which I had to insist in bringing the Mandate before the League of Nations. I had to insist that we should come under the obligation of this Mandate for four years only. The Mandate was provisional and was to endure only for that period, and it was suggested that at the end of that time Iraq might be in a position to ask for entry into the League as one of the constituent countries. The further provision was indicated that, if that condition had not arisen when the four years' Mandate came to an end, the matter would have to be reconsidered and thought out again under the new conditions which might then have arisen In other words, not only was no such term as twenty-five years laid down but there was a special provision that the Mandate was not to be in force for a longer period than four years, and that after four years, if it was to be reinforced or re-enacted, it was at the same time to be reconsidered.

I should like to say one or two words in order to emphasise what I have said as to the position of Great Britain as a Mandatory in this district. What are the conditions of a Mandate under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations? In the first place, it was laid down in terms that a Mandatory Power was not to act on its own behalf but as a trustee for the League of Nations; in other words, it was not to use the position of a. Mandatory in order to push forward its own Imperialistic or other views, whatever they may be. In the second place, its duty is—and it is very important that this should be remembered in connection with the relationship between Lillie country and Mosul—provisionally to render administrative advice and assistance to the mandated territory until such time as it can stand alone. I would call your Lordships' special attention to the word "provisionally." Your Lordships will see hat the duty is to render administrative assistance, and mandated countries are not, therefore, to be regarded as if they were in the position of being under the sovereignty of the Mandatory.

A word is used in a subsequent part of the Article which, I think, adequately explains the position. The word is "tutelage," the idea being that during a period of tutelage the mandatory authority will educate and assist in the administrative development of the mandated country, until it is able to take an independent position of its own. Then, annually, a Report, is to be made to the League of Nations, and there is a special—what we should call a statutory—Commission, to which all these Reports are referred. Lastly, perhaps I might call your attention to these words, because they indicate the whole spirit in which these Mandates ought to be considered: The Mandatory is asked to apply the principle "that the well-being and development of such (mandated) peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied" in the necessary instrument. That is our position. It is not for us, as Mandatories, to consider what advantage we can get out of our position. It is our duty as Mandatories to consider how we can perform the duty placed upon us, and the responsibility which we have under- taken of educating, provisionally, by administrative development, a backward people, in order that ultimately they may take their place under conditions of full independence.

That position, I think, is emphasised in this case by the Report which was made by General Laidoner which was lately laid before the Council of the League at Geneva. He dealt with four matters. In the first place he pointed out that this was a wild region where there were constant tribal wars, where everyone went about armed and the different tribal or village chiefs were in a condition of almost constant warfare. He said that those conditions would probably be more or less continuous, and he threw no blame for them upon either Turkey or Great Britain. He then referred to the question of the occupation of certain villages by Turkish military posts and patrols, and also to the allegation that flights had been made over the frontier line by British aircraft. Neither of those matters did he consider of importance. He said that at present the frontier line was undefined and not. marked out, and that instances of that kind might he expected but the fourth point to which he called attention was a point of extreme importance in his view.

That was the deportation of Christians from points north of the proposed line to the south of the proposed line, within the territory to be adjudicated to Iraq. The history of those deportations is very terrible to read. No one doubts the horrors to which General Laidoner refers. They are further emphasised by the report of his own staff, who personally investigated the condition of these deported Christians, and I may take it—I am sure I should not make any other statement—that it is of extreme importance to our national honour, and the responsibilities that we have undertaken, that we should do all in our power to prevent such horrors from being enacted in the future. But then comes the question, How is that to be done? After all, those Christians, who I see were denounced as "traitorous brigands" from the Turkish point of view, cannot be immediately under our jurisdiction and sovereignty. They are outside the line which from the end of this year, or whatever the date may be, would be the frontier line between Iraq and Turkey.

How can we deal with a difficulty of this kind? I said at the outset, and I want to emphasise it again, that it can only be dealt with satisfactorily by friendly arrangement between Great Britain and Turkey. The alternative is really to consign these Christians on the north side of the line to Turkish horrors, probably aggravated because they are regarded as a traitorous element in the Turkish Republic. I do not know what the noble Viscount will say on this point. but I urge the Government, in the strongest terms, not to allow language to be used which is likely to excite extra friction and trouble, but, on the contrary, to encourage in every possible way a friendly settlement of this real difficulty. which cannot be settled unless there is a friendly arrangement between the two Powers. The next point, which I think your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said, is with regard to the condition of this frontier district. It may become, unless there is a friendly feeling between Turkey and England, a real danger-spot in the future—a danger-spot not only locally, but a danger-spot from which difficulties may spread over a very-wide area, and even ultimately lead to an outbreak of war, involving many countries in the East and West.

I do not, myself, of course, believe for a moment that that is likely to take place at once—I am not suggesting that—but we have to look forward to the future, and in doing that is there any way in which the conditions of this frontier line can be satisfactorily settled, unless there is friendly relationship between Great Britain and Turkey? Of course, it is our interest in a matter of this kind to be friendly. I deprecate very much some of the statements that I have heard, some of them, I think, attributed to the Colonial Secretary, in which he suggests that the giving way, even on a friendly line, of Great Britain might affect what is called the prestige of this country as regards her position in the East. I do not believe that for a moment. This was a matter originally undertaken by us as Mandatories. It is a matter which has passed out of our hands into the authority of the League of Nat ions, it is a question as to which matters of difference have now been adjudicated upon by the Council of the League of Nations, and I suggest that it is only worthy of our position as a great Power to show that we appreciate and understand the difficulties of Turkey as well as our own difficulties, with a view to bringing about satisfactory adjustments between the two countries.

If we do not, what will the result be? We shall not be able to push forward the people of Iraq into being a self-governing community, because they could never become that with severe friction on the Turkish frontier. We ourselves would be put to a long period of cost, because if there was really friction on this frontier line I do not, and cannot, believe it would not be a heavy source of expenditure to us in future years. Lastly, should war ensue by any mischance in this central district of Asia, I think it would be a great calamity to this country, to Iraq, and to Turkey, and it might spread over wide areas in other countries.

There is one other consideration which I would like to urge before I leave the question of Mosul. The difficulty in connection with Mosul did not arise at Geneva. So far as Geneva is concerned, it was settled in September, 1924, under the conditions which I have mentioned. The difficulty arose from a clause of the Treaty of Lausanne, under which a most difficult question was put off in order that, if possible, it might he determined by the Council of the League. When this question was first considered at Geneva I happened to be the Delegate for Great Britain, and I had to argue on behalf of Great Britain that this question had been sent from Lausanne to Geneva and afterwards to Brussels, not for the purpose, of consideration, but for the purpose of decision. As your Lordships are aware, that attitude has now been confirmed by the decision of the International Court.

At the same time, I want to make another aspect of the matter quite clear. The Turkish representative at that time at Geneva and afterwards at Brussels was Fethi Bey. I had very frank and friendly relationships with Fethi Bey. He always said that in his view the matter might be settled, and settled in an amicable way. It has not been altogether understood, I think, that: he did argue that from the Turkish point of view the reference under Article 13 of the Covenant was for the purposes of investigation and inquiry, and not for the purpose of settlement. In that respect he was held to be wrong, but I do not think it is out of place to say that that argument was held by him. It was an argument for which, undoubtedly, something was to be said, although in the long run it has been held by the decision of the International Court at The Hague to be wrong. Your Lordships know what the decision is. The decision is to accept as the frontier line what was practically the line laid down at Brussels, after careful inquiry, by that great statesman in the international world of almost unequalled authority, the late M. Branting, who was then Prime Minister of Sweden. But the decision has new been given, and that decision must be obeyed.

But what was never referred to the Council, or any other body, was the question of the length of time for which the mandatory settlement was to be maintained. The period of twenty-five years was first mentioned in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry which, on a suggestion made by me on behalf of Great Britain, was appointed to go out and examine the conditions on the spot. One can see quite clearly why this period of time alters the position from the Turkish point of view as against the previous period of time, which was limited to four years, and which would have come to an end in September, 1928. I think it is radically unsound from every point of view to acquiesce, until a far more friendly settlement has been made, and until the conditions are far more clearly ascertained, to a mandatory responsibility for twenty-five years—a responsibility which is likely, in my opinion, to endure for that period. I sincerely hope that it is not too late for this portion at any late of the Mosul settlement to be reconsidered, and I believe that the reconsideration of this point would have a great effect in producing friendly relations with the new Turkish Republic.

Before leaving this matter, I should like to refer to the speech the Foreign Secretary made when the decision was given at Geneva. He indicated his desire to approach Turkey in the most friendly spirit, and invited the Turks in a very friendly way to make such communications and suggestions as they thought might bring about a real settlement. So far I am entirely in accord with the attitude that Sir Austen Chamberlain adopted on that occasion. I hope that such a friendly arrangement can be made. It is the only way of dealing with the duties and responsibilities of a Mandatory in this country, and I hope that, if necessary, in making this arrangement there will be no stiff adherence to this prolonged period of twenty-five years. At the same time the Colonial Secretary made a statement which appeared to me to be of a much less friendly character, but I presume that the negotiations with Turkey will be in the hands of the Foreign Minister, and if he can carry out the indications of policy which he made at that time I, for one, would support him to the utmost of my power.

The other matter which I want to raise is disarmament. It is not necessary to come to an immediate determination on that question, as it is on the question of Mosul. But I want to impress again on the noble Viscount opposite a view with which I know he is sympathetic, namely, that it is quite impossible, if we are to fulfil the obligations which we have undertaken as signatories of the Covenant of the League, or which we undertook before the signature of the Treaty of Versailles with the Germans, to allow the conditions of unilateral disarmament in Europe to continue. It was never intended that there should be a prolonged period of unilateral disarmament; on the contrary, it was intended that the disarmament of Germany should be as an example for the reduction of armaments in other countries. So long as you have one disarmed country among armed neighbours I can see no security or certainty of permanent peace.

The Treaty of Locarno referred to disarmament, but I do not think any one can say that it carried the matter farther than it had gone before. But this year at Geneva a Resolution was adopted by the Assembly—the noble Viscount will tell me if I understand it aright—that a Committee or Sub-Committee should be appointed to consider the conditions under which projects of disarmament might be brought forward. Some appointments, perhaps all, have been made to that Sub-Committee. But what I want to ask the noble Viscount is whether any of the real difficulties have been met and solved by the appointment of that Sub-Committee. It was rumoured that the old discussions which had arisen between France and England on this subject were being raised again, I think by Paul-Boncour and others, on behalf of France. I thought they had been settled in the Fifth Assembly in 1924. But is there any prospect of this Sub-Committee really bringing about a practical scheme of disarmament in the near future? On this point I ask for information from the noble Viscount. Formally—I suppose it gives me a right of reply if necessary—I ask for Papers in my Motion. I ask for that Resolution to be put, although I certainly shall not press it if I get a satisfactory answer upon the points I have raised from the noble Viscount opposite.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill under the Parliament Act, 1911.

Read 2^a (according to Order): Committee negatived.

Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3^a , and passed.

Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.

Moved, That the Commons Amendments he now considered.—( Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—( Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a .—( Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Bill read 3^a , and passed.

House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3^a , and passed.

[ From Minutes of December 18.]

Report made from the Lord Chancellor that in the Peerage of Ireland Percy Ronald Gardiner, Earl of Bandon, has established his succession to the Earldom of Bandon, and his right to vote at any elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the Report be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.