/^ AND B K V ' ID i 1 :-^ I J. 'CORNELLI.ANA CORNELL LAV/ LIBRARY QJnrrtpll ICatu ^rl|onI ffiibtaty Opift of JUDGE DOUGIASS BQARDMAN CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 924 052 878 265 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924052878265 THE MANDATE FOR MESOPOTAMIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TRUSTEESHIP IN ENGLISH LAW BY D. CAMPBELL LEE. M.A.. LL.B. THIRD PRINTING THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS UNION 1921 THE MANDATE FOR MESOPOTAMIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TRUSTEESHIP IN ENGLISH LAW BY D. CAMPBELL LEE. M.A.. LLB., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law ; and of the New York Bar, Counsellor-at-Law. A LECTURE delivered under The Cecil Rhodes Benefaction at University College, London University, MONDAY. MAY 23rd, 1921. WITH THE AUTHOR'S COMPLIMENTS. The Mandate for Mesopotamia and the Principle of Trusteeship in English Law When tih© first part of the Treaty of Peace with Germany was given to the world in 1919, publicists at once perceived that a new idea in International Law was embodied in Article XXII. This now famous Article of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied a status altogether novel to certain portions of the Globe and to the peoples inhabiting them, Those portions before the War were colonies and territories enjoying the blessings of administration of Germany or Turkey, as the case might be. Instead of parcelling out these lands to the Allied and Associa,ted Powers for annexation, the Versailles statesmen — I am bold enough in these times of cynicism to use the term — created a new status. They created an international trust or mandate given to a particular State on behalf of the League of Nations. The colonies and territories are, in the language of Article XXII., those ' ' which as a consequence of the late War have ceased " to be under the sovereignty of the States which for- " merly governed them, and are inhabited by peoples ' ' not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenu- " cus conditions of the modern world." The Article also states that ' ' the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to " advanced nations who, by reason of their resources, "their experience, or their geographical position, can "beet undertake this responsibility, and who are ' willing^ to accept it , and that this tutelage should be 5 6 THE MANDATE ' ' exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the "League." "The well-being and development of such peoples" are recognised as forming "a sacred trust of civilisation." The great aim is emphasised by the use of the word trust a second time in the same connection, " and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." A Fair Trial of Stewardship. The Mandate for Mesopotamia is but one of the three types provided for by Article XXII. While all mandates have the same underlying principles, they ' ' differ according to the development of the people, "the geographical situation of the territory, its ' ' economic conditions and other similar circum- " stances." I shall exclude from this discussion any detailed considera- tion of the African or Pacific mandates. My time is limited; the Mesopotamian Mandate is typical, and is of immediate interest. It was the first accepted by Great Britain ; it is likely to be the first to be effectively applied ; it will establish a most important precedent for good or ill ; and its application will be a singularly fair trial of our stewardship and test of the sincerity and ability of our British statesmen to meet the demands of this unique regime, and to satisfy the high expectations of the framers of the Treaty. There is no doubt that, in the words of Article XXIt., Mesopotamia cea-sed to be under the sovereignty of Turkey as a consequence of the War. By the Treaty of Peace signed at Sevres, Turkey renounced in favour of the prin- cipal Allied Powers all her rights and title over that country. In accordance with Article XXII. of the Covenant, it was agreed by the same treaty that Mesopotamia should be "provisionally recognised as an independent State, " subject to the rendering of administrative advice and " assistance by a Mandatory, until such time as it ' ' should be able to stand alone. ' ' Great Britain was subsequently selected by the Supreme Council as Mandatory; and on December 7, 1920, the FOE MESOPOTAMIA 7 Mandate having been accepted by Great Britain, Mr. Bal- four submitted its terms in draft for the approval of the Council of the League of Nations. This Mandate has not yet been formally approved by the Council, but the British Government has undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League in conformity with the terms already pubMshed. The Mandate and Article XXII. of the Covenant consti- tute, therefore, Mesopotamia's new Charter of Freedom. Spirit of English Trusteeship. Much of the confusion of thought that has enveloped the exposition of this Mandatory system arises out of its sup- posed close connection mth Continental and Eoman Law. I vpish to make clear in these introductory sentences that the new mandatory system cannot be explained or under- stood except by the aid of English Law. Although it bears a Eoman name, it is the offspring of thd great conception of Trusteeship that has developed through the centuries in this Island, and gradually matured into that stalwart Juris- prudence known as English, which measures out justice wherever English speech is spoken and is, I dare to assert, Tespected far beyond those limits. The Mandate is the very child of English law — the English law of Trust. It is, in fact, not a new principle in British politics. Maaiy British statesmen during the past 100 years have given evidence of feeling after it. Some of the greatest have haply found it. It breathed in the Proclamation of <3ueen Victoria at Allahabad in 1858 : — ' ' We disclaim alike -the Eight and the Desire to " impose Our Convictions on any of Our Subjects " ; "All shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial pro- ' ' tection. of the Law ' ' ; " And it is Our further Will that, so far as may be, "Our Subjects, of whatever Eace or Creed, be fairly " and impartially admitted to Offices in Our Service, ' ' the Duties of which they may be qualified by their " education, ability, and integrity, duly to discharge." It was the spirit of English trusteeship that set free the peoples of Canada, of Australia, and of New Zealard. The statesmen who gave constitutions and independence to these &■ THE MANDATE young peoples were followers of that great political philo- sopher Edmund Burke- Can we ever forget his words : — ' ' Let the colonists always keep in mind the idea of " their civil rights associated with your government,, "they will cling and grapple with you, and no force " under heaven will be of power to tear them from "their allegiance. But let it be once understood that: " your government may be one thing and their privi- ' leges another, that these two may exist without any "mutual relation — the cement is gone, the cohesion "is loosened, and everything hastens to decay an(f " dissolution." A S.'iCRED Trust. This same philosophy created the South Africa Union,, in many respects the finest flower of British statesman- ship. It may be news to many that the mandatory principle of trusteeship for backward peoples' is actually embodied in the South Africa Act, 1909, written into- that great charter by Mr. Asquith, whose services to the Empire and to humanity in this connection, I venture- to suggest, have not been adequately recognised. In a Schedule appended to that Act the transfer of the Native territories of Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland from the Imperial Government to the South African Union is specially provided for, and the terms, of the mandate outlined. Inter alia, their land? cannot be alienated, the revenues of each are to be expended for and on behalf of the territory ; native customs are to be recognised ; the people are not to be restrained from intercourse with the rest of South Africa ; and a judicial system, with appeal to the King in Council, is- to be established. In short, the words of Article XXII. of the League of Nations Covenant, that the well-being and development of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves shall form a sacred trust for civilisation, may aptly be applied to the motif that has guided British statesmanship for the last 100 years. They explain adequately how the leaders of this people — a people not free from self-interest — have been able to bring together and keep together during these years the most wonderful aggregation of POR MESOPOTAMIA 9 «elf -governing, non-tributory nations the world has ever «een. It is the sense of responsibihty, the consciousness of trusteeship, that makes the Englishman or the Scot a respected administrator wherfever he goes. When the world once grasps the idea that a Mandatory is simply and only a trustee for backward peoples ; when the Mandatory assumes his ^ duties as those of a trustee as ■defined by English Law, and when it is seen that a Mandate is not a licence to exploit, but is a solemn trust, being executed in all good faith under these principles of law (so far as they can be applied to international relationships), the first stone of the founda- tion of the Temple of Peace will have been laid. The Unfortunate Word. A further reason why there has been so much con- fusion of thinking respecting the Mandatory system, and why these principles have not been more widely acclaimed, I see in the nomenclature which has been used. So far as English-speaking peoples are concerned, the word Mandate is unfortunate. It carries the idea of a command or order. Whenever we have used the word in the past, it bears this inevitable meaning. In early English history it was the commaiid of a King and his justices addressed to a Court to control a suit.' In Church history it is a Papal rescript or Order. At Home it was used to describe an imperial command sent to the governor of a province. In America, it is an order issuing from the Supreme Court of the United States on an appeal or writ of error directing what shall be done in the lower court. And generally, in politics, it is an instruction or order given by the people at the polls to a political representative ; as when the American Ambassador asserted at the recent Pilgrim dinner that the present American Government could not disregard the mandate of last November without betrayal of its masters. These uses of the word in English speech do not help us very much. On the contrary, it is certain that in the States of America, where a Webster's Unabridged Dic- tionary is to be found in nearly every home, the know- ledge of the Latin derivation of the word has operated 10 THE MANDATE against a sympathetic acceptance of the idea in connec- tion with the League of Nations. The people have said, and still say : " If the word means a command or order, it must imply a superior body having the power and authority to command — and that is the very Super-State which we fear." "Not a State, but a Method." It is all very well to explain to such individuals that the League of Nations is not a State, but only a method ; not a sovereign body, but only an arrangement by which certain States try to accomplish some things the old diplomacy found it difficult to achieve. They point to the dictionary and say : " There is the word : ' MAN- DATE, a command or order.' " It is also easy to go to "the Covenant, Article XXII., Section 2, and show that a mandate cannot be forced upon any nation against its will. A mandate is therefore not an order or command in the ordinary acceptance of the word. Americans naturally find themselves confused. They cannot understand why " command " and " voluntary service " are not terms mutually exclusive. Such mental difficulties so generally evinced carry us back to college days, with their heated academic debates on divine- election and free-will. Can we be surprised • that the people are suspicious? I am convinced that if the term Government by Trustee had been adopted instead of Government by Mandatory, one-half of the objections and more than one-half of the popular suspicions prevalent in America and England against the whole systena would have been avoided. The Mandate in Eoman Law. The justification for the use of the word mandate is, of course, that the term mandate is in universal use on the Continent of Europe, whose laws are mainly derived from the Eoman, to describe contracts of agency. Let us see how far the use of the word in Eoman private law will help us in understanding the new Mandatory system of the Treaty. Every student of the law knows— in England he has to know it before he gains his Call to the Bar — that in Eoman private law mandate (mandatum) in its simplest form is FOE MESOPOTAMIA 11 a contract in which one person promises to do or give something (si qui mandatum suscipit manditarius) , without remuneration, at the request of another (mandant), who, on his part, undertakes to save him harmless from all loss. That is : (1) the person making the request is called the Mandarxt, (2 ) the person promising to conduct the business is called the Mandatory, and (3) the contract is called the Mandate. In the beginnings of Roman Law, the purposes of a Mandate were to benefit the Mandant alone, but later the contract possessed variable features. A mandate might be made (1) for the benefit of the Mandant, or (2) for the benefit of a third person (aliena gratia), but if for the benefit of a third person it must be with his consent, express or implied, or (3) for the benefit of the Mandatory and a third person, or (4) for the Mandant and a third person, or (5) for the Mandant and the Mandatory. It could not be exclusively for the benefit of the Manda- tory. The Mandatory was bouiid to show the greatest degree of care. The contract could be revoked by the Mandant or renounced by the Mandatory. The Mandatory was required to give up to the Mandant all- profits accruing under the Mandate, and to permit the Mandant to sue in the name of the Mandatory. And unless the Mandatory was to derive benefits, the Mandant agreed to relieve the Mandatory of all loss or liability, to indemnify him against all obligations incurred in the discharge of the Mandate. Many of the rules of mandatum bring out the fact that it was essentially a confidential contract, as its name indi- cates (Manus, dare), because the Mandatory gave the hand in testimony of the fealty he promised. It was founded in friendship (amicitia). As I have said, it was originally gratuitous ; the Mandatory could not take remuneration. 12 THE MANDATE In old French Law the gratuitous character of the Man- date was an essential point of the contract. It immediately ceased to be a Mandate if any remuneration was stipulated. Article 1986 of the great Napoleonic civil code introduced an important innovation by providing that ' ' the Mandate is gratuitous unless there be an agreement to the contrary," which had the effect of rendering this contract a remune- rated one in the majority of cases. To-day, the strictly gratuitous feature of mandate agreements has all but dis- appeared on the Continent. The Mandate has come to be, in other words, little more than a remunerated agency. Difficulty of Application. Now if we attempt to apply these fundamental prin- ciples and rules of Mandate as known to Eoman private law to Article XXII. of the Covenant of the League of Nations, we find ourselves confronted with a multiplicity of queries, some, I submit, unanswerable, and others, if they can be answered, caiTying conclusions fatal to any proper concept of the purpose of the system created by the Article, such as : — 1. Can the League of Nations be a Mandant? 2. If so, can it indemnify the Mandatory? 3. Is only one kind of Roman Mandate applicable? and 4. Is it certain which kind should be followed? 5. Can a Mandate for the benefit of a third party be forced on the party against his will? 6. Finally, is the work of a Mandatory to be strictly gratuitous? or is its Mandate to be regarded as a remunerated agency, after the fashion of modern Con- tinental law? On this survey I think you will agree with the late Professor Groudy, who shared with Dr. Murison, of this College, the honour of being our greatest authorities on Civil Law, when he wrote in the year 1919 : — " On the whole, the analogy of international man- " dates of the kind before us to mandate in private FOE MESOPOTAMIA 13 "law is a rather vague one, with not a few com- " plexitiee, and the same rules can hardly be applied "to both in practice, except to a partial extent." Turning from Eoman Law and the complexities of which Professor Goudy has spoken, let us now consider the English Law of Trustees. The law of mandate in England has been merged in that of agency, but the feature of gratuitous service has almost disappeared, except in the case of gratuitous bail- ments. Judge Story, the celebrated American legal writer, kept the word mandate in his Commentary on Bailments, "which was published in 1832, to describe such gratuitous bailments, but this precedent has not been followed in the English-speaking world. The normal English contract must be for valuable consideration. The principle of gratuitous service has developed in English law, in a way peculiarly English, into the well- known doctrine of trust and the law of trustees. A Trust may be defined as " a confidence reposed in some other. ' ' "A trustee is one who, while holding legal owner- " ship or possession or dominion over the subject of " the trust, is bound to allow the beneficial enjoyment ' ' or usufruct of the property to be reaped by the "cestui qui trust or beneficiary." I affirm that it is not the Continental principle of Man- date that has prompted and produced the Mandatory system, but the English idea of Trust. That great doc- trine has been, I believe, the real inspiration of Article XXII., and is to-day its sole dynamic force and saving grace. If this be true, a consideration of that doctrine should illumine obscurities and clear the road of progress for Mandatories in the future. Duties of a Trustee. The duties of an express trustee under English law are not vague or uncertain. If some day you find that you are appointed under the Will of an old friend Executor and Trustee, and the Testator has bidden you, after paying his debts and funeral expenses, "to stand possessed of the clear residue of his estate upon trust, either to retain it in its then state of investment or to resell and reinvest in certain securities, to receive the income and pay it to the 14 THE MANDATE widow during her life, and after her death to divide the trust property equally amongst such of her children aa being boys shall live and attain the age of twenty-one, or being girls shall attain that age or marry under it," you need not fear that the English law of trusts will overwhelm you. I advise you to purchase at the nearest bookshop a little book by Mr. Augustine Birrell, K.C., first published over twenty years ago. Eead there the " Duties and Liiabilities of a Trustee." A reading of this wonderful little book will not only develop in you an appreciation of what can and what cannot be done by you as trustee, but I predict with confidence that it will awaken in you an admiration for the law itself, as well as for the witty and brilliant author who explains the law of trusts so simply and 80 fascinatingly. Whether it was Mr. Birrell or Mr. Godefrois or Mr. Lewin that first touched my lips with a coal from off the altar I know not. This I know, that I worship to-day before the exalted idea of unremunerated service to be found in the English Law of Trustees, and univer- sally carried out in this country ; I can find in the com- parative laws of other lands no rules so strict in their demands upon a trustee, no liabilities so terrible for a breach of trust. Mr. Bieebll's Definitions. The American law of trust has, of course, followed the early English trust, and the decisions of Hardwicke, Talbot and Eldon, Cottenham, Selborne and Jessel, are quoted daily in the courts of all the 48 States of the Union except Louisiana, but the statutory development of the trust principle has not been so ideal as here. The statutes of the States generally have allowed remunera- tion for services rendered. They have thus altered the whole conception of the trustee. The development has been towards contract and away from confidence. The English law, not Tiermitting remuneration unless, expressly provided for in the terms of the trust deed, has held trustees to a sense of duty not demanded by many State laws in America, and not surpassed in this respect by any. In the little book I have mentioned Mr. Birrell tells FOE MESOPOTAMIA 15 cplloquially what are some of the duties imposed by English law upon a trustee. He says : — 1. The first duty is to make himself acquainted with the terms of his trust. 2. The second duty is always to bear those terma in mind. 3. His third duty is never to depart from them. These three duties Mr. Birrell calls ' ' primitive truth," but, nevertheless, a disregard of them is. responsible for a large proportion of the breaches of trust usually committed by honest trustees. 4. His fourth duty is to take as much care of the trust property as (being a prudent man of business)- he is accustomed to take of his own. 5. The fifth duty is to invest only according to law. 6. His sixth duty is to give the persons benefi- cially interested in the trust complete information as to the trust funds, and to render accounts. 7. The seventh duty is not to make a penny piece of personal profit out of the trust business, unless he is a professional man specially authorised so to do in the trust deed. 8. His eighth duty is to retire whenever requested so to do by the parties interested, and 9. Ninthly, and lastly, whenever any question of difficulty actually arises as to the extent of his powers or the nature of his duty, to take the opinion of a judge in chambers by way of summons. Definitions Applied to Mandatoey. Now it is not by mere chance that these duties of an English trustee under a deed of express trust fit so nearly perfectly into the scheme of mandatory government created by Article XXII. of the Versailles Treaty. With the excep- tion of the question of ownershin to which I shall soon revert these nine duties which English and, generally speaking, American law impose on a trustee, are the 16 THE MANDATE natural and consequential duties one would impose upon any State assuming in the words of the Covenant a ' ' sacred trust for civilisation for the development of a people " not yet trained to self-government. The international trust deed in the case of Mesopotamia is an express one. It is fgund complete in Article XXII. and in the draft Mandate submitted by Mr. Balfour to the League Secretariat for the approval of the Council. When I first read that draft I could hardly contain my enthu- siasm. I felt that it was an event in one's life comparable to seeing the first American gunboat in British waters in 1917. I saw that this great declaration, if honestly applied, meant a new era, the institution of a new system in the relations between the imperialistic States of Europe and the Asiatic and African peoples. And, mirabile dictu, this Declaration of Independence for Mesopotamia was not issued by the Arabs of the Euphrates and Tigris, but by Great Britain on their behalf ! Yet I could find not one word of emphasis on Britain's rights. She proclaimed in language aU could read her duties to the Mesopotamian people : — Britain's Acceptance of Trusteeship. She would progressively assist Mesopotamia to become an independent State, rendering assistance and advice until it is able to stand alone ; she would assist the Arabs in framing a Constitution for the new Arab State within three yeans, taking into account the rights, interests, and wishes of all populations inhabiting the country ; she would organise local forces for local defence, recruited from the inhabitants, to be responsible to and controlled by the local authorities ; she would see that no Mesopotamia terri- tory was ceded or leased to foreign control; she would abrogate capitulations, and establish a judicial system that would safeguard the jurisdiction now existing there ; she would ensure freedom of conscience, and the free exercise of all forms of worship ; and would permit no discrimina- tion on grounds of race, religion, or language ; she would promote education in native languages, establish educa- tional requirements, and not impair the rights of any com- munity to maintain its own schools ; she would protect Bhrines and safeguard missionaries ; she would enact a law of antiquities, and gladly adhere to international conven- FOE MESOPOTAMIA 17 tions respecting traf&c in slaves, drugs, arme and ammuni- tion, respecting commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, and the preventing and combating of disease. There should be an annual report. And, in case of any dispute, it should be submitted to the Permanent Court of Internationa.1 Justice provided for in Article XIV. of the Covenant. Where can you find another Declaration of Independence with a loftier moral purpose? A scrutiny of the terms of this Mandate shows that it provides a way for the application of all the nine rules of the law of express trust, as sketched by Mr. Birrell. Mandate an Express Trust. This Mandate is an express trust. Its terms are clear. The Mandatory is acquainted with them, for Great Britain is their author. Whether this Great Power will bear them in mind remains to be seen. Should she depart from them, should these phrases — "a sacred trust for civilization"^ mean nothing to her, then shall we have to confess that the mandatory system is a fraud from beginning to end,, merely a new method of imposing imperialistic will upon subject peoples. That is not my idea of what is in store for the world. Mr. Lansing says that if the advocates of the system intended to avoid through its operations the appearance of taking enemy territory as the spoils of war, it was a subterfuge which deceived no one. I reply that it was not intended to deceive anyone. It is an open and above-board effort to get rid of one of the most potent causes of war. We have done, I hope, with the old idea of expropriating one set of people by another. The mandatory system is confessedly an alternative to the division of peoples as spoils of war. If the alternative succeeds, it will have shown us how to deprive victors of one of the profits of war, and so promote peace. If the apparent altruism of the system does work in favour of the Powers which accept the Mandates, as Mr. Lansing predicts, it will only be because they undertake the Man- dates in a large and generous manner in all good faith for the benefit of all people concerned. As to the fourth duty in Mr. Birrell's list, the care a trustee should take of his trust property, this has been 18 THE MANDATE the subject of many a learned decision in our courts from the time of Lord Hardwicke down. When applied to Mesopotamia it surely means that all Britain's resources, all her talent and character, must be summoned and applied to husbanding the native industries, protecting and pro- moting Mesopotamia's natural resources and maintaining order even more scrupulously than she v?ould have done had the country been annexed by her. Trustee's Expenses Eepaid. It has been unfortunate that the subject of profits and necessary expense of the Mandate has occupied the atten- tion of our people to the exclusion of all else connected with it. But surely it is not too late for all to understand that it has always been the rule in English law that a trustee can and should be repaid his expenses incurred in administering the trust (Lord Selborne : Cotterell v. Stratten). Costs and expenses properly incurred by trustees in execution of a trust are a first charge on all the trust property, both corpus and income. There is no doubt that the Mesopotamian country is amply rich enough to cover the cost of the Mandate. The whole region is admitted to be petroliferous. The first shipment of cotton (90 bales) recently left Baghdad ; rice is grown in considerable quantities, and can be greatly increased, and wheat and other cereals but await the achievement of Sir William Willcock's great scheme for irrigation. What has been done with the Colorado and the Nile rivers can be done with the Euphrates and Tigris. Mesopotamia may once again be made the granary of the world. But, beyond all this, here is a sacred trust for civilisa- tion, in whose administration every member of the Empire should take a peculiar interest. " We cannot fail to reap large natural benefits flowing from trade," as the Under- Secretary for the Colonies well points out, but we shall not succeed with the Mandate, unless we face the issue fairly and resolve not to make a penny piece of personal direct profit out of this trusteeship. If England and Englishrnen cannot frankly make that resolve, they should renounce the trust now before it is finally accepted, and thus permit some other nation to enter and carry out the trust. FOE MESOPOTAMIA 19 " Suspended Sovereignty." It has been felt by some that there is a matter of grave danger threatening to emerge from the Mandatory system, namely, the difficulty if not Impossibility of determining the question of Bovereigmty. I suggest that those who are so full of apprehension respecting this matter are merely borrowing trouble. If it be necessary to answer the ques- tion : Who possesses the Sovereignty of Mesopotamia after tlie acceptance of the Mandate by Great Britain and before the creation of the Arab State? I suggest that no Manda- tory acting on behalf of the League possesses Sovereign powers in the capacity of Mandatory. A Mandatory, however, may conceivably possess as such what corre- sponds to the legal estate of a trustee in private law, subject always to the unqualified right of intervention by the League of Nations. I suggest that the sovereignty of a Mandated area is in suspense pending the creation of a new State, pending the time when the people are able to stand alone. Legal dominion would vest in the Mandatory antil the Mandate is fulfilled, until the beneficiary assumes the trust. I do not see how the League of Nations can possess sovereignty in its present state of development, but it is highly probable that from the view-point of Inter- national Law the proper conclusion is that the Allied Powers, by creating the Mandatory system, have placed the sovereignty of all Mandated areas in suspense during the operation of the respective Mandates. The important and practical consideration is that the Mandatory must possess legal dominion. This is conferred on him by his selection as a Mandatory and by the approval of his Majidate by the Council of the League. So long as he fulfils an unrevoked Mandate, he has legal dominion within the compass of his powers. He has no rights of sovereignty beyond this limit. Full sovereignty will come in due time to the territory, but only when its people assume the dignity of an independent State. What response is Great Britain making to the call to serve civilisation under the new system of Mandates? It is a question that is being asked in distant lands, and requires an answer. Is she evincing a sense of steward- ship and trusteeship, or is the change that has taken place by authority of Article XXII. one of words only? Is she 20 THE MANDATE serving as trustee without pay for the benefit of the cestui qui trust or is she acting the part of a commercial agent and arranging for her own profits to the exclusion of others ? In short, are her critics warranted in saying that under the cloak of altruism she is piling up and securing per- manent advantages for herself regardless of the beneficiary ? Eefdtation of Charges. Seeking with an open mind an answer to these questions, I have obtained information from various sources, such as. the published corresnondence between the Department of State at Washington and the British Foreign Office, per- sonal informal talks with officials at the Colonial Office,, the letters of Mr. Perceval Landon, written from Meso- potamia and published in the "Daily Telegraph" during the last few weeks, the well-known Eeport on the Civil Administration of Mesopotamia, by Miss Gertrude Bell,. C.B.B., and other like authorities. I have tried to form an estimate of what has been, and is, taking place since Britain accepted the Mandate. May I bring my lecture- to a close by a brief summary of the opinion I have formed ? The response Britain has already made to .this high call is a complete refutation of the charges made against her. There is not the slightest foundation for the suspicion of self-seeking. There is ample evidence, on the contrary,, that the responsibility of trusteeship has not only pro- foundly influenced Downing Street, but that that idea has also permeated and moulded all instructions which have emanated from His Majesty's Government. This has. been especially true respecting the oilfields of Mosul and Irak. All natural resources have been preserved statu quo in order that the new Arab Government may not find itself embarrassed or its hands tied respecting this great natural resource. Only one oil well has been put down, and this- has been for military purposes and at army expense. Simi- larly, a small refinery has been started for military purposes, dealing with oil from the Persian oilfields. No private interests are in any way involved. Whether the British holdings in the Turkish Petroleum Company will be recognised by the new Arab Government is still an open question. It also remains to be seen whether the company's pre-war concession will be validated by the FOE MESOPOTAMIA 21 new State. Britain has not sought for any oil or other monopoly for herself or her nationals, and whatever rights British subjects had before the war remain the same to-day, no more, no less. So much of the San Eemo agreement as transferred to France the interests of Germany in the Turkish Petroleum Oil Company in exchange for a pipe- line into Mesopotamia from the Mediterranean is also dependent for its effectiveness upon validation by the Arab State. In short, nothing has been done by the Mandatory to impair the corpus of the trust as handed over to him under the Mandate. No Discrimination. The latest published word from Lord Curzon on behalf of the Foreign Office brings a new note of assurance re Oil. He says, in the language of diplomacy, that His Majesty's Government ' ' are glad to find themselves in general agreement " with the contention of the United States Govern- " ment that the world's oil resources should be thrown "open for development without reference to " nationality." Thus is removed any possible ground for the strange suspicion that has been given wings by irresponsible jour- nalists that discrimination was contemplated against nationals outside the League of Nations. It was never contemplated. The nationals of all lands, however, and particularly Americans, who helped to free Mesopotamia from Turkish rule, will be assured by Lord Curzon 's words that any such meaning read into the phrase of the Mandate : " The Mandatory must see that there is no dis- " crimination against nationals of any State member "of the League of Nations," has been, and is, wholly unjustifiable. Lord Curzon lifts the subject of equality of treatment .above the technical agreement among members of the League of Nations, and says that all nations shall have the same equal treatment and equal opportunity so far as the Mandatory can assure it. The crucial test of Britain's honesty of purpose may be seen in no clearer light than in its willingness to have 22 THE MANDATE every dispute rebpecting the Mandate or the administra- tion of Mesopotamia adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the League of iSI^ations, the Permanent Court of Inter- national Justice, whose judges will be representative of various States. This is the tribunal whose constitution and rules have already been drafted by two leading lawyers of the English- speaking world, Mr. Elihu Eoot and Lord Phillimore. The policy now being followed is, I am convinced, con- sistent in every way with the Covenant and the Mandate and the interpretation of the claims of trusteeship which I have outlined and advocated. To every possible position of dignity, authority, and trust Arabs are being appointed. English political officers in the towns are being withdrawn and replaced by Arabs. A small Arab army is being recruited, officered entirely by Arabs. Civil and criminal courts of various grades have been constituted. They are officered by Arabs. The judges are described as honest and able — a sharp contrast to the Turkish Courts before the war, vs^hose dishonesty was proverbial. The number of primary and secondary schools has been greatly increased. The children are taught in the language they can understand — that , is, the local vernacular. English has been introduced only when a real need for it exists. Divisional Councils have been formed. Interest in local improvements has rapidly developed. There are now nearly a hundred municipalities that perform valuable public services, of which lighting and sanitation are the minimum, and many towns are embarking on municipal enterprises such as electric lighting, water supply, and flour mills. A New Civilization. No one can fail to have a deep sympathy for a Govern- ment which, faced at home with the most serious financial and other problems and embarrassments, resolutely attempts to carry out at this time a Mandate for the Arab people. You must remember that the Arabs arc not accustomed to self-government. They are wild, turbulent men, trained to independence by the manner of their life, but forced to submit to an alien dominion for a thousand years, divided among themselves, with inherited religious FOE MESOPOTAMIA 23 and tribal jealousies that accentuate the divisions, because they are in many cases personal. Under the Turk, there was civil chaos. If, within a few months of British guidance, this people has. made any considerable progress towards settled government, it should be remembered unto the Mandatory for righteousness. The situation in Mesopotamia is filled with the greatest complexities. It is rendered dangerous by outside inter- ference. Following the referendum that showed an un- mistakable desire for British guidance, the revolutionist has come with his hands filled with gold in order to enforce his eloquence. To-day the Euphrates tribes stand out against any settled government ; the Tigris population does not know whether it wants an Iraki or a Sherifian King ; but the hope of the whole country lies in the steady, strong, progressive policy which the British Administration is carrying out as Mandatory. Two thousand years ago the Arab was the teacher of the world. His astronomers foretold the eclipses of the sun. His mathematicians and physicists were renowned in every land. To-day, under the influence of modern progress, a new civilisation is rising on the dust of the old. A thriving agricultural community will again cover the plains about the ruins of Babylon. Ur of the Chaldees will once more become the centre of Arab culture, and the new Arab State will take its plaKie in the family of nations. When, in the future — however remote or near it may be — these ends shall have been attained, the Englishman of that day may take a special pride in the fact that hie fathers in their time were faithful to the sacred trust reposed in them, and applied to the international Mandate for Mesopotamia as far as it was possible the principles of trusteeship as defined by English law and as practised throughout the English-speaking world. Printed by St. Clements Press, Ltd., Portugal Street, Kingsway, London, W.C.2.