Treaty was to institute a defensive alliance between the two countries, commercial and financial arrangements being left to a separate protocol. Turkey also undertook to send teachers and military officers to remain in Afghanistan for a period of five years.

From August 16 to 25 festivities were held at Paghman to celebrate the anniversary of Afghan independence. The Ameer on this occasion became reconciled with his elder brother, Inayatullah Khan. A rumour spread that he had been murdered, and he had to hasten to Kabul to show himself. He took the opportunity of making a speech in which he laid stress on the importance of developing home industries, of dispensing with foreign officials, and of a strong army to preserve the national independence. Subject to these conditions the Ameer showed himself anxious to modernise the country. He welcomed the presence of all kinds of foreign missions. Thus on October 13 M. Poincaré demanded from the French Chamber credits for the creation of a French legation in Afghanistan, the two Governments having agreed to receive permanent diplomatic missions. Early in November the British commercial mission was in Kabul to arrange details of a trade convention on the lines laid down in the Anglo-Afghan Treaty. The Ameer personally set a high standard of devotion to duty, which was followed by his civil service. He encouraged the sending of Afghan youths abroad to be educated. During the year a number of telegraph and telephone lines were laid down or commenced, e.g., from Landi Khana to Kabul, and from Kabul to Peshawar; while young Afghans were trained for telegraph work at Karachi.

IRAK.

Almost the whole of the year has been spent in uncertainty regarding the Mandate and the Treaty between the kingdom of Irak and its prospective Mandatory. It was expected that the Mandate would have been approved at the same time as those for Palestine and Syria but when the latter came before the Council of the League of Nations the negotiations with the United States regarding Irak were not yet concluded and the Mandate for that State was therefore held over. It had not yet been approved when the year closed. To the idea of the Mandate there was considerable opposition on the part of the Iraquians, and it was believed that the King himself was not altogether sympathetically disposed. By the Iraquians was put forward the alternative of a Treaty by which in effect Irak would become a British protectorate but which would secure a greater appearance of independence than would the proposed Mandate. British policy as it developed through the year favoured both a Mandate and a Treaty. The Iraquians' attitude towards the Treaty varied from time to time, but in the end Feisal and his Government accepted it. It was signed on

October 10 and it is now awaiting ratification by the Constituent Assembly which has still to be convoked. Under the Treaty (see Public Documents, p. 113) the King of Irak undertakes to be guided by the advice of the British High Commissioner in all matters affecting British international and financial obligations and interests. The British Government on its part undertakes to use its best endeavours to secure the admission of Irak to the League of Nations. With that admission the Mandate, to which exception is taken, would automatically come to an end. Apart from the agitation concerning the Mandate and the Treaty the political history of the year was by no means uncheckered. As early as April there was a Cabinet crisis, in the course of which five of the Ministers resigned, the reason being undue interference with them on the part of the King. New members were appointed, but these did not remain in office long, for four months later there was another Cabinet crisis, in the course of which the whole Cabinet resigned. The cause was the same as on the previous occasion. Hard on the resignation came an incident which might have had very serious consequences. On August 23, the anniversary of the King's accession, Sir Percy Cox, the High Commissioner, called at the Palace to congratulate the King. His way was impeded by a large crowd, which when he reached the precincts of the Palace he found was being addressed by anti-British orators. This was the culmination of an agitation that had been gathering strength for months. Sir Percy Cox of course could not permit

the insult to pass. He had several highly placed agitators arrested and removed from Baghdad, and suppressed their newspapers and political organisations. This action had an immediate sobering effect. Other agitators, fearing a similar fate, promptly went into voluntary exile.

The Cabinet of August did not last long. It fell in October, and the one which succeeded was again formed by the Nakeeb of Baghdad as Prime Minister. This on its part survived for but a few weeks, for in the middle of November yet another Cabinet was formed, on this occasion without the assistance of the Nakeeb. None of these changes had any effect at all on foreign policy. The new Government, however, did not meet with universal approval, for there remained a party whose hostility took the form of a determined boycott of the approaching elections.

Its

So far the internal history of Irak during the year. external affairs have also not been untroubled. For the greater part of the year there have been threats against Irak by the redoubtable Ibn Saud, Chief of the Wahabis of Central Arabia. These first appeared as cattle raiders, causing a great deal of damage; they were ultimately dispersed by aeroplanes. For these offending tribes Ibn Saud disclaimed responsibility, although they were more or less under his control, and it was inevitable that the raids should be connected with Ibn Saud's threats

against King Feisal's relatives, the King of the Hedjaz and the Emir of Transjordan. The Chief of the Wahabis receives a regular subvention from the British Government which is therefore able to exercise some influence over him, and in order to prevent a recurrence of similar undesirable incidents representatives of the two Arab rulers, together with those of the High Commissioner, met in conference at Muhammarah and agreed on a loose frontier, determined by tribes rather than territory. However, this agreement does not appear to have been accepted wholeheartedly by Ibn Saud, whose attention was nevertheless turned away from Irak towards the West, so that nothing further was heard of him during the year.

Farther north in the Kurdish hills there was spasmodic trouble on several occasions, but this was hardly of a political character, but may almost be considered normal, even though some assistance was rendered to the insurgents from the Turkish side of the frontier.

The last weeks of the year were signalised, so far as Irak was concerned, by most determined claims by the Turks at the Lausanne Conference for the return of Mosul and district to them. These claims were just as determinedly resisted by the British, and the Conference being still in session at the end of the year the matter was not concluded.

PALESTINE.

Until the approval of the British Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24 (see Public Documents, p. 117) all interests in the country suffered from the indefiniteness of the political situation. For a year a delegation of Palestinian Arabs had been in London using the whole of its influence to persuade the British Government to cancel the Balfour Declaration, which promised that Government's best endeavours to secure for the Jews a National Home in Palestine. This Delegation received much encouragement from the extreme Tory section of the Opposition, who were reinforced by the small body of Anti-Semites in public life. The agitation culminated in a motion, which was carried in the House of Lords in July, condemning the Government policy. This was, however, speedily followed by the publication of correspondence between the Colonial Secretary, the Zionist Organisation, and the Arab Delegation in which that policy was defined, and in a debate. in the House of Commons that followed that policy received overwhelming support (see English History, pp. 69-71). The statement of the Colonial Secretary already referred to was in effect an exposition of moderate Zionism, a fulfilment of the promise to the Jews which could in no way prejudicially affect Arab interests. It was so effective that opposition in England, which had risen almost to boiling-point, quickly died away. The Council of the League on its part accepted the policy

unanimously. The Arab Delegation returned to Palestine disappointed and vowing that it would oppose the Zionist policy to the bitter end. A Palestinian Congress was immediately summoned and several extreme measures, including a political boycott of the Government and a commercial boycott of the Jews, resolved upon. But these resolutions were never translated into reality, and after a few solitary murders of Jews the entire agitation subsided. One of the causes of this failure, which at the same time showed how artificial the agitation was in reality, was the complete failure of the financial campaign that was launched in order to carry on the agitation. Another contributing cause was a certain coolness that arose between the Christian and the Moslem Parties as a consequence of the Pan-Islamic attitude of the Delegation that had been sent to plead their cause at Mecca.

The Mandate, although it had been passed by the Council of the League and the Mandatory Power had been authorised to act as if it were in force, was not formally approved in July. The delay was due in no way to any Palestinian matter. France was anxious that the Mandates for Palestine and Syria should be approved simultaneously, and as the latter was held up by differences between France and Italy on certain minor matters, it was agreed that the formal approval of the Palestine Mandate should also be deferred. This delay, however, had no untoward effect. A constitution was immediately promulgated and given the force of law, and steps taken to draw up a register of electors for the Legislative Council.

There was one other Palestinian matter that loomed very large in the English eye about the time of the approval of the Mandate, and that was the grant of a concession to a Mr. Rutenberg, a Russian Jew, for the electrification of Palestine. It was suggested that this concession was but a part of the plot to subjugate Palestine to the Jews, that it had been obtained by unfair means, and that it was devoted to unfair ends. But this agitation also quickly died away, and when it was found that Mr. Rutenberg was an industrialist, not a politician, and that his projects benefited all Palestinians equally, Jew and Arab alike, the opposition to them, so far as it was non-political, was quickly dissipated.

The Arab political agitation revived with the convening of the Lausanne Conference and the change of Government in England, and a delegation was again sent to Lausanne and London. In the former city it failed to obtain any hearing and in the latter it was heard only to be told that the Palestine question was in effect a chose jugée. The coquetting of the delegation with the Turks did not improve its chances, which were, however, in the best of circumstances of the flimsiest.

The status of Transjordan remained indefinite throughout the year, and in October the Emir Abdullah, accompanied by his principal advisers, proceeded to London to discuss the

question with the Colonial Office. It is said that the result of the discussions was satisfactory to both parties, but, despite numerous sensational rumours, no pronouncement has yet been made and the status hitherto in force still persists. In the summer some alarm was caused by a Wahabi incursion into Transjordan, but it was repulsed with the assistance of British gendarmerie, and for the remainder of the year tranquillity reigned.

SYRIA.

During the year 1922 the State of Syria was even more disturbed than during the previous year. Something of the nature of a general rising broke out in April, although in view of the overwhelming French forces it never caused any military anxiety to those in power. The seething trouble was brought to a head by the visit of the American diplomatist, Mr. C. R. Crane, who had been the Chairman of the American Commission which had been sent to Syria and Palestine while the Peace Conference was sitting in Paris, to ascertain the wishes of the population regarding their future government. Mr. Crane was in Damascus in quite an unofficial capacity, but as soon as his presence was known a number of Arab notables came to him with an expression of the grievances of the population against their French rulers. The Arab leaders were thereupon arrested for the offence of communicating their grievances to Mr. Crane and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.

The disturbances were not confined to any one district of Syria. They spread quickly to all parts of the land. There were riots in Damascus and Beirut and similar disturbances, also suppressed by force of arms, at Homs. Further afield, where the French position had not yet been consolidated, there were risings at Jerablus on the Euphrates, at Den-es-Zor, and in the Hauran. In the course of the disturbances Assad Bey, the Minister of the Interior of the Greater Lebanon, was murdered.

The cause of the disturbances, added to the feeling of unrest general among Eastern peoples, is in the first place the resentment of the Lebanese at the loss of the favoured position as regards their neighbours which they at first enjoyed under French rule. The Lebanese were at first the pets of their protectors, but as relations between the French and their Moslem neighbours to the north became more friendly, so the attitude of the French towards the Moslem communities of Syria improved, and every improvement was felt by the Lebanese to be an infringement of their rights. It must not be thought, however, that this change of attitude made the Moslems of Syria more friendly towards their rulers. The French agreement with the Kemalists was by some regarded as a sign of weakness, and gave them corresponding encouragement in demands for a wide autonomy or even independence for Syria,