Dispute with Mandates Commission is Discussed by House of Commons

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency Mail Service)

The questions of the trustee character of a mandate and the relationship between the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations and the Mandatory Powers in connection with the objections which have been raised by Sir Austen Chamberlain and others against the new questionnaire of the Mandates Commission and its desire to hear petitioners, came up in the House of Lords today, in a discussion on the League of Nations raised by Lord Parmoor, Lord President of the Council in the Labour Cabinet.

Lord Parmoor said that he rose to call attention to the late Council and assembly at Geneva and especially to the question which comes before the Council at Geneva-these matters appeared to be constantly extended as the influence of Geneva extends–he did not propose to go into any question other than the two which he had specifically mentioned of disarmament and Mandates. The two subjects were of great importance, particularly at the present time.

With regard to Mandates, it was known that under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League mandated territories were to be held by the Mandatory Powers as a sacred trust of civilization. A very important permanent Commission had been constituted. It was appointed through the Council, of course, but it was intended to be the creature of the Covenant itself, and in that sense independent of the Council. This year the Mandates Commission asked two questions. One was whether, in order to obtain the necessary information to carry out the duties thrown upon it, it would be right that it should hear the views of petitioners who desired to appear before it. The other was whether a questionnaire which they proposed was one which would commend itself as a proper means of obtaining information.

The obtaining of information of this character was a delicate matter, and the responsibility thrown upon the permanent Mandates Commission was both a difficult and a delicate one; but when this question was raised before the Council, he did not know exactly how to express the attitude adopted by certain members of the Council and by the representative of this country. It certainly was not a courteous attitude, and in fact it was a suggestion, as far as he could follow it, that in some way the Mandates Commission was going outside its appropriate sphere and entering upon matters which more properly came within the authority of the Mandatories themselves. He thought that was unfortunate, but he had no doubt himself that in spite of the comments made by the Mandates Permanent Commission, constituted as it was would carry out its duties in what it thought an effective manner.

But his point was a different one, and seemed to him to be of much importance. The Mandates Commission had to report to the Council in what was a semi-judicial attitude, and it was most important, if the principles of the Covenant really were to be carried out, that the Council should as far as possible act in a judicial spirit. Was that possible when the Council had among its members, and amongst its most influential members, practically all the important mandatory countries. Surely it was inconsistent with the impartiality on which the principles of the Covenant were founded, that in substance, the same parties were both parties to the dispute and also acting in a judicial spirit. Far the most important point of all, of course, was that the mandatory authorities should always have in view the trust character of their authority.

Viscount Cecil of Chelwood (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) said that Lord Parmoor had suggested that something had occurred at the last Assembly in which he suggested that representatives of the Great Powers, including Sir Austen Chamberlain, had been guilty of discourtesy to the Permanent Mandates Commission. He had not been present at the debate in the Council but he had read the report of it more than once and he was utterly at a loss to understand on what words he founded any suggestion of discourtesy to the Permanent Mandates Commission. He was quite certain that nothing was further from the mind not only of Sir Austen Chamberlain but of other members of the Council than to be guilty of any discourtesy to that body. He would like to say in the strongest possible way that the British Government had no desire in the world to hamper, or interfere with, or do other than support to the utmost of their power, the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission.

The discussion at the last Assembly arose over two points. It arose over what was called the questionnaire in the first place. That was, it must be admitted, a very long list of questions circulated by the Permanent Mandates Commission to the Mandatories. He was not going to criticize the substance of that questionnaire, but he was bound to admit that the impression on his mind when he first saw it was that, to use a colloquialism, it was “pretty stiff.” It was very long and very elaborate and it did not seem at first sight necessary to put it in that form, however, desirable the obtaining of the information might have been.

The other point was as to the right of audience and on that there was no suggestion made by the Permanent Mandates Commission. There was merely a question put by them. They asked whether in certain cases they ought, or ought not, to hear petitioners against a Mandate. That was a question which he dared say it was very necessary to raise, but he thought that for the Permanent Mandates Commission to hear petitioners against a Mandatory would be, as a general practice, a very dangerous one. His Majesty’s Government’s attitude in the matter was undoubtedly that if a petition was presented it was right to send the petition to the Mandaory. The Permanent Mandates Commission should obtain all information from the Mandatory that it can obtain by means of questions and correspondence. That was the ordinary practice and no question arose regarding it. Nothing should be done to increase the difficulties of the task undertaken by the Mandatory Power. That was a point of view which the Permanent Mandates Commission had constantly emphasized. They had constantly pointed out that it was of the utmost importance that they should work in full collaboration and friendship with the Mandatories. Their work had been admirable, devoted and self-sacrificing, and extremely skilful, and he had not the slightest doubt that the British Government desired to the utmost to collaborate with the Commission in their beneficent work and in carrying out this very novel and difficult experiment which had been set on foot as part of the international reforms connected with the League.