foreign passports to enable them to come to this country, and they are given either by the British passport officers stationed abroad, or by British Consular officers stationed abroad, and the charges for those services and the receipts from those services are accounted for in the Diplomatic and Consular Vote.

1039. Does this item include any fee for endorsements on passports?-All fees connected with passports, whether for renewals or endorsements, or anything of that sort done in this country in connection with British nationals, are included here.

1040. But the item does not include anything that may be done even for a British national in connection with a British passport if it is done abroad? One can get a passport abroad?—That would appear in the account of the man who does the duty. If it is a Consular officer it would be in the Diplomatic and Consular accounts.

1041. Is there anything on the expenditure side which shows the cost of issuing the passports? Are there any people specially allocated to this work, and if so, is there any estimate of the total expenditure? The salaries of the Passport Office in London, and the Branch Office in Liverpool, are included under Subhead A of this account, and they amount to about £50,000 cut of the total sum of £260,000 under Subhead A. In addition to that, certain other Departments of the Government incur expenditure on behalf of the Passport Office. The Office of Works houses them and cleans their offices; the Stationery Office provides them with the very considerable amount of stationery which they have to use; and the Post Office performs certain services for them. It is estimated that those other services amount to about £22,000 in addition to the £50,000; so that the total cost may be put roughly at £72,000 a year.

1042. Therefore for this particular year the Passport Office made a profit of about £50.000? They made a profit of about £50,000. But I am afraid that will not continue to the same extent. As I explained on a previous occasion, there have been certain readjustments in the charges for passports which give a longer life for the original fee of 7s. 6d, and enable renewals to be carried out for smaller sums for certain periods. The

[Continued.

effect of those readjustments will begin to be felt in the coming financial year, for which we have estimated we shall take only £100,000 in fees. Until we know the effect of those adjustments I do not think it would be wise to make any further reduction.

1043. I suppose it was because the Passport Office was making a profit that it was thought reasonable to make those reductions you have referred to?-Yes. We have always said we do not look upon it primarily from the point of view of making money so long as it is selfsupporting.

1044. Receipts on account of visas do not enter into this vote at all?-No.

1045. One further point with regard to messengers' salaries. I suppose, these messengers have to know a certain amount of foreign languages, do they not? I expect in point of fact they do. I am not sure whether it is requisite in recruiting them. They are recruited by the Civil Service Commission for us, and I am not certain that foreign languages are an indispensable qualification. Many of them are ex-military officers and people who have travelled a good deal, and I have no doubt they all know enough to get about.

1046. In any case they are people who have knowledge of getting about the world? Yes, emphatically.

1047. And of course that is what makes them very much above the level of the ordinary clerk?-They are very distinctly above that.

1048. And that is why they require a salary commensurate with these rather difficult services they perform?-We hold that view.

Chairman.

1051. May I ask the Treasury this question upon that matter. The published returns of staffs post-war and prewar would not cover that point, because

[Continued.

they only give the figures for the Department as a whole?—(Mr. Phillips.) That is so.

1052. This therefore would be a separate statement?-(Sir Frederick Butler.) Yes.*

Chairman.

1053. On this Vote you have a report, Sir Malcolm, which is contained in paragraphs 28 to 33 on pages xiv, xv, and xvi. We will deal with paragraph 28 first. That paragraph, Sir Malcolm, deals with the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes. The point is that in addition to the cash expenditure, which is quite easily vouched, for the first time certain charges appear in the Accounts for deliveries under the Rhineland Agreement in respect of billeting, and services such as furniture, transport, postal, telegraphic, and telephone services rendered by Germany to our people. I have not been able to see detailed vouchers because part of the payments represented a bargaining figure settled between the Rhineland High Commission and Germany. As regards the later expenditure, I have not seen all the vouchers; I have seen summaries, but all the vouchers are kept in Germany, and it is not worth while, even if it were possible, to send anyone over to look at them. These summaries cover the great part, though not quite all, of the charges for deliveries after 1st September, 1925. (Mr. Phillips.) This has been a subject which in the past has given rise to a considerable amount of dispute between Germany and the Allies, but it is now governed by detailed financial regulations, which have been laid down by mutual assent. The regulations are excellent, but it takes some time to get the vouchers through in a completely satisfactory form. (Sir Frederick Butler.) I have nothing to add to what is stated here. It is quite satisfactory from our point of view.

Sir Fredric Wise.

1054. How long will the Rhineland Commission go on? (Sir Frederick Butler.) I am afraid I could not say. I suppose until we evacuate the territories we must have some representatives there.

1055. Has the Commission moved from Cologne to Wiesbaden? It is still at Coblenz, but we have given up our delegation at Cologne.

1056. Were there two Commissions then, am I to understand?-No, there was one Commission with a section of itself at Cologne.

1057. So that you have reduced the expenditure?—We have reduced the expenditure very considerably.

1058. That will probably mean more for us in the way of reparations?—Yes. Anything we save on that leaves so much more for the Reparations Fund.†

Chairman.

1059. Paragraph 29, Sir Malcolm, refers to the Anglo-Turkish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal? (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) I was rather surprised at first sight that the British members of the Tribunal should have been appointed the year before the Tribunal was formally constituted. That is really the point of the first part of this paragraph. In the latter part of the paragraph I draw attention to the fact that this expenditure covers not only salaries, but also a great deal of travelling between London and Constantinople, including journeys taken for the purpose of leave.

matter for the Committee. Can you tell us, first of all, who were the members of this Tribunal? (Sir Frederick Butler.) The neutral Chairman was a Danish Judge, Mr. Hammerich. The British officials were Mr. Grimston, who was the British member, Mr. Owen Wells, who was the British Agent for the preparation of cases, and Mr. Dane, who was the British Secretary. I should like to make it clear that this is not a matter in which we, apart from the appointment of the British members, are a law completely to ourselves. It was a joint Tribunal, and it had to be set up in conjunction with the Turkish Government. That is at the root of the trouble. Also we were working under certain time limits laid down in the Treaty of Lausanne. The Tribunal had to be constituted within three months of the coming into force of the Lausanne Treaty, and claims had to be presented within a year from the same date. Those were material factors causing us to hurry on with our preparations. We were so impressed by the necessity of getting the Tribunal set up in time, so that claims should not fail because they had not been pre

we

sented before the due date, that began discussions with the Turkish Government some months before the Tribunal was about to come into being. What we had principally to discuss with them was the appointment of the neutral Chairman of the Tribunal. We found very great difficulty in getting any reply out of the Turks for several months, and the date at which the Tribunal

We

ought to be constituted was actually passed, I think, by two days before we got a reply agreeing to the salary which we had proposed for the Chairman. then had to agree on an individual for Chairman, and again we met with the same difficulties. Eventually we came to a deadlock, and the appointment had to be referred nder the Treaty to the President of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. Mr. Hammerich was then selected. By that time it was April, 1925, and Mr. Hammerich went to Constantinople as the neutral Chairman, who had to be agreed to by the Turks, and, as it happened, also by the Italian Government, because in order to save expense we agreed with them that we should have one Chairman for both Tribunals. There was an ItaloTurkish Tribunal as well as an Anglo

[Continued.

Turkish Tribunal. We had had our people designated for some time, but did not appoint them until we knew Mr. Hammerich had been selected. We then had no reason to believe that the Tribunal would not be constituted at once, and we appointed them and sent them out to Constantinople. Then came more trouble with the Turks. Mr. Hammerich could not get them first of all to appoint their representative. When he was appointed he resigned, and they were a very long time in appointing another. Mr. Hammerich found the difficulties so great that three months later, in August, he said, "I am going home." Amongst other things, the Turkish Government had not paid him any portion of his salary, which they were due to pay him, and so Mr. Hammerich went back to Denmark. We left our Secretary in Constantinople doing his best to get things going with the Turks, but the other two members, as paragraph 29 of the Report shows, came home. They did not, however, come home to be idle, as I will explain in a minute. There were several things that they were doing. But to return to Mr. Hammerich-he refused to go back to Constantinople until he had got guarantees as to his salary. There was no difficulty about our giving the guarantees, and not much difficulty about the Italian Government giving the guarantees.

Sir John Marriott.

1061. Was his salary to be partly paid by the Turkish Government?-It was to be paid half by the Turks, one-fourth by us, and one-fourth by the Italian Government. Eventually we induced him to go back to Constantinople, in January or February of the following year, before he had actually got his guarantees from the Turks, but in the event they did pay his salary all right. He then started again on the difficulties of getting the rules of procedure drawn up, and there were very great difficulties about accommodation which the Turkish Government were supposed to find, and there were also very great difficulties about how far the Turkish Government would bear the cost of accommodation, and how far we should. Eventually the Tribunal did not get set up until, as paragraph 29 of the Report states, April 1926. In the meantime the two men we had had at home were employed-apart from a certain amount of leave-in this way.

1062. Were they members of the Foreign Office staff?-No. They were outside people whom we had selected in conjunction with the Board of Trade. They were not members of the Foreign Office staff. One of them went to Paris and spent a lot of time looking into the records of another Commission-the Inter-Allied Assessment Commissionwhich was set up in Paris to deal with claims against the Turkish Government for war damages, for which purpose a sum of £5,000,000 was provided in the Treaty of Lausanne. People quite intelligibly did. not distinguish very clearly between that Assessment Commission and this Tribunal, and there was a feeling that a great many claims which ought to go before this Tribunal, and should have been in before August 1925, might have gone to the Assessment Commission. One of the members who came home spent a lot of time looking at those claims, and seeing that they came before the proper Tribunal. The other member spent a great deal of time in this country investigating and discussing with the Poard of Trade and the Treasury Solicitor some of the principal British cases with a view to presenting them to the Tribunal as soon as it was set up. We feel that in the circumstances they made quite a good use of their time, and that the work which those two men put in was work which had to be done sooner or later for the proper functioning of the Tribunal.

Chairman.

1063. In the reply which you have made you have anticipated many other questions that I intended to ask. I take it that it is your case that although there was this very great delay in setting up the Tribunal, these representatives were in fact employed on work which had to be done sooner or later for the Tribunal. Would you contend that there was no loss or wasting of time?-I could not contend that, but I do contend that we had no alternative but to proceed as we did. When the Chairman was appointed I think it was our duty to appoin our members at once, otherwise the Turks would have said that we had delayed the setting up of the Tribunal, and they would have thrown upon us the responsibility of any delay in the presentation of claims.

1064. We may not be familiar here today with the exact terms of the Treaty, but do they in fact tie you up in that

[Continued.

way? Was there no provision for delay, or any other arrangement in the event of matters not coming to a head with the Tribunal? That is a point disputed in the Tribunal itself at this very moment, because one of the first pleas the Turks set up when the Tribunal got to work was that a whole mass of British claims had not been presented in time. But the Chairman, Mr. Hammerich, holds that he has power under certain clauses in the Treaty to give exemption in proper circumstances. How that is going to be decided I do not know.

1065. During all this time were you making regular representations to the Turkish Government? So far as we could. At one stage Mr. Hammerich begged us not to make very strong representations because he felt that any strong representations we made on his behalf, or bringing him into it, would prejudice his reputation for impartiality with the Turkish Government.

soon

1066. There is a large bill, in one way and another, for travelling expenses. These people seem to have gone to Constantinople and come back very afterwards. How do you account for that? They came back in August, 1925, when Mr. Hammerich himself came away, and it was seen that at any rate the Tribunal could not be set up until he went back. It was only then that they came away, and they employed themselves in the manner I have described in Paris and in London.

1067. But were not there other journeys there or elsewhere, all of which were charged up to this country? I do not think there could have been. The amount shown here is £413, and the return journey is something over £100 for each of them. I do not think there can have been many journeys.

Sir Assheton Pownall.

1068. Only two members returned, one, apparently, staying there?-One stayed on at Constantinople.

1069. Am I right in understanding that we only bear one-quarter of this expenditure?-One-quarter of the Chairman's salary.

1070. But we bear the whole expenditure, of course, of the British members? -Yes.

1071. Are they still sitting, since last May?-Oh yes, they are still sitting. 1072. And we are still responsible for this expenditure?—Yes.

Mr. Ellis.

1073. Could we not have waited until Mr. Hammerich had reported that he had the Court constituted and had got a building in which the Court could be held, and that everything was ready to begin? It is only three days' journey from London to Constantinople?-I do not think that could have been done. I think he wanted the people there to be pressing things on with the Turkish Government. I do not think he much liked doing it all alone. Of course, we had no reason to anticipate that this would happen.

1074. In the event it has turned out that they were sent there a little precipitately? Yes. Looking back on it I think everyone would agree on that; but looking forward to it, I think everybody would have done what we did.

1075. Except next time?-Except next time, I agree.

Mr. Gillett.

1076. Could you tell us what is the financial arrangement made with the British members?-The British member gets, I think, £1,500 a year, the agent £1,400, and the Secretary £1,200.

1077. That is so long as the Commission is sitting? So long as the Tribunal is in being. That would include certain amount of leave.

a

1078. How much leave are they given? -There is some provision made in the Treaty for vacation. I think it is a month in the year.

1079. Is that all that these people had during the time mentioned in this minute? I presume that is all. I cannot say I have investigated that. It is all they should have had as vacation.

1080. Who would know if you do not know? The Foreign Office would know. I could find that out if you wish to know it. I could find out exactly what leave they took, and what time they spent in the investigation I have referred to.

1081. But your belief is that they only took a month's leave? That is all they should have had.

1082. But you do not know for

certain?--I do not know for certain have not looked at their papers.*

Mr. Ellis.

1083. Do we recover from the applicants in these cases any of the costs?

* See Appendix 56.

Not in the case of any of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals.

1084. Then that means they are having the whole of this work done for them for nothing?—Yes.

1085. It has to be paid by the general taxpayer? Yes.

one

1086. That is entirely contrary to the usual rule? It is certainly contrary to other Claims Commissions that knows of, e.g., the Anglo-American claims, but, so far as I know, none of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals set up under the Peace Treaties of 1919 has provided for the recovery of costs from the claimants.

1087. Is that the case with foreign nations and their nationals; are they not charged a proportionate amount for fees? I am not aware of that.

1088. It is a question of policy. I suppose I cannot ask who suggested that? I am afraid I could not tell you if you did ask. When I went to the Foreign Office I certainly found that in being. I do not know whether the question was ever raised. It has not been raised to my knowledge. It is not provided under the Treaty.

1089. Surely certain costs have to be paid at home? Anyone claiming at home against Germany has to pay certain costs to the Office?-I do not think so.