and the Bank of Norway, none of the bigger banks collapsed. The Storting granted 25 millions Norwegian crowns for the purpose of assisting the Banks. Norwegian industries were, in spite of great difficulties, able to keep most of the works going, and the number of totally unemployed persons was in December, 1922, about 30 per cent. less than in the same month of 1921. There were also other signs of recovery. The export trade steadily increased, and the exchanges improved. During 1922 the exchanges were not subject to such violent fluctuations as in the preceding year.

The labour situation was exceedingly quiet throughout the year. No strikes or lockouts of any importance occurred, thanks to the Law of Compulsory Arbitration in labour disputes which was passed by the Storting in March, 1922, on the initiative of the Government. The Conservative Party-the right-strongly opposed the bill; the majority in favour of the measure included the two Labour Parties-the Communists and the Socialists-besides the Party of the Government, the left. By the awards of the Arbitration Court wages were reduced by about 25 per cent. and the workmen's holidays were shortened.

The membership of the Norwegian Trade Unions has declined heavily during the last two years. At the end of 1920 the total number of trade union members was 142,642, at the end of 1922 the number was only 100,372. During the same period the Communist Labour Party lost about 40 per cent. of its members. This decline is chiefly due to the industrial depression, but it is also to some extent a result of the split in the Labour Party, many of the rank and file being dissatisfied with the Bolshevism of the leaders. The larger of the two Norwegian Labour Parties joined the "Third International," but during 1922 there has been considerable friction between the Executive of the Norwegian Party and the leaders at Moscow. The disagreement reached its climax in December when the Congress of the Third International at Moscow passed a resolution severely criticising the lack of discipline in the Norwegian Party and demanding a stricter adherence to Bolshevik orthodoxy. This ultimatum from the Moscow International created some uneasiness in Norwegian labour circles, and some of the most influential Communist leaders, including Martin Tranmæl, advocated a break with Moscow to save the independence of the party. It is, however, probable that a compromise will be arranged, enabling the Norwegian Party to remain in the Third International.

The municipal elections, which took place in the autumn, showed some progress for the Communists in some parts of the country, especially in Hedmark Fylke. The Communists did not, however, obtain a majority in any of the city councils in the large towns. In the capital, Christiania, the bourgeois parties-Conservatives, Liberals, and Prohibitionists-have a

majority in the city council even over a combination of Socialists and Communists.

Prohibition and the commercial difficulties created by the Prohibition Law was the outstanding political question of the year. It should be kept in mind that prohibition in Norway is quite a different thing from prohibition in the United States of America, the Norwegian prohibition law only affecting spirits and strong wines containing more than 14 per cent. alcohol. In Norway, as in other prohibition countries, it is difficult to obtain an impartial and accurate estimate of the results of prohibition, the prohibitionists and the anti-prohibitionists both being apt to overstate their case. According to official statistics, the number of persons arrested for drunkenness increased somewhat in 1922, particularly in the larger towns; the number was, however, much smaller than in the years before the enactment of the Prohibition Law. Considerable smuggling takes place, but during 1922, the Government took very strong measures to combat the illegal traffic, and smuggling has now become an exceedingly hazardous business, the smugglers risking heavy penalties and confiscation not only of the illicit liquor but of the ship employed as well. The majority of the Norwegian people is still no doubt in favour of partial prohibition, and there would be no chance of a repeal of the Prohibition Law were it not for the serious inconveniences to the Norwegian fishing trade caused by prohibition.

The protracted treaty negotiations with Spain were at last brought to a close in July, 1922, a new commercial treaty between Norway and Spain being ratified by the Storting by 103 to 47 votes. By this treaty the two countries agree to treat each other as most favoured nations, Norway undertaking to import annually 500,000 litres of Spanish wine, containing more than 14 per cent. alcohol, for medicinal use. The Storting at the same time empowered the Government to reopen negotiations with the Portuguese Government and to ascertain if a more favourable treaty could be obtained in case Norway should abrogate the Prohibition Law as far as wine is concerned. These negotiations were not concluded before the end of the year.

The Foreign Secretary, Dr. Ræstad, resigned before the conclusion of the treaty with Spain, disapproving of the concessions made by Norway regarding the compulsory importation of Spanish wine. He was succeeded by Mr. Johan Mowinckel, who had been Minister of Commerce in the Blehr Cabinet since its formation in July, 1921. The new Foreign Minister is fiftytwo years of age. He entered the Storting in 1906 as member for Bergen and was president of the Assembly, 1915-18, and at the same time parliamentary chairman of the Left Party. As President of the Special Foreign Office Commission appointed by the Knudsen Ministry in 1919 Mr. Mowinckel was largely instrumental in bringing about the Foreign Office reform,

which was passed by the Storting in July, 1922, and which, it is expected, will greatly enhance the efficiency of the Norwegian diplomatic and consular service.

The Greenland question is still unsettled. In December, 1922, the Norwegian Government notified the Danish Government that Norway made strong reservations with regard to the new Danish Bill on the administration of Greenland as far as the Bill concerns territories where Danish sovereignty was not claimed before the Danish decree of July, 1921. This decree which extended the Danish sovereignty over the whole area of Greenland has not been recognised by Norway, the Norwegian Government upholding the rights which Norwegian whalers and sealers have enjoyed for centuries in the Eastern part of Greenland. Some Norwegian papers have recommended that the question should be submitted to the League of Nations to be settled by arbitration.

Another Arctic question which is engaging the attention of the Norwegian Government is the administration of Spitsbergen. In accordance with the Spitsbergen Treaty the Norwegian Government submitted to the signatory powers a draft mining Bill for Spitsbergen. One power-Holland-objected to some of the provisions in the Bill, and after negotiations between the Norwegian and Dutch Governments the Bill was amended in the autumn, 1922, in order to meet the Dutch objections. When the mining Bill has been definitely approved by all the signatory powers, the Bill and the treaty will both be submitted to the Storting for ratification.

An event of great importance to Norway was the judgment of the Arbitration Court at The Hague, in October, 1922, awarding the "Christiania Group" of Norwegian shipowners damages amounting to about 12 million dollars for ships and contracts requisitioned by the American Shipping Board during the war. The American representative on the Tribunal, Mr. Chandler P. Andersen, protested against the award, alleging that the Court had disregarded the terms of submission. The American Government, however, did not endorse the protest of its representative but accepted the award.

CHAPTER VI.

THE MIDDLE EAST AND INDIA: PERSIA-AFGHANISTAN-IRAK

PALESTINE-SYRIA-ARABIA-INDIA.

PERSIA.

THE year 1922 was much less eventful than its predecessor. There was a change of Government, but Riza Khan, Persia's strong man" remained at the helm, and public tranquillity was not seriously disturbed. Early in the year the Shah left for Europe, where he made a prolonged stay, residing for the most

Q

part at Nice and visiting King Alfonso of Spain at Madrid on October 10. The Government's chief concern was to improve the financial condition of the country. The Prime Minister favoured the engagement of foreign advisers and the development of the Northern oilfields. He found, however, some difficulty in imposing his views on the Mejliss, and accordingly, towards the end of April, at his request a Commission composed of Deputies of all parties was appointed to assist the Cabinet to revise its policy. At the end of June matters had come to such a pass that the police of Teheran threatened to resign if their salaries were not paid within ten days. The Mejliss finally consented to a request being sent to America for financial and other advisers; and on August 1 it approved the appointment of Dr. A. Chester Mills Paul, petroleum expert in the State Department, as Director General of Finance with the task of drawing up the budget and instituting financial reforms. The new post was to be not merely advisory but also executive, and it was stipulated that no financial engagements should be entered into by the Persian Government without the written. authority of the Director and of the Minister of Finance; but the former at the same time pledged himself not to interfere in the internal politics of Persia. Dr. Mills Paul left New York for Persia on September 30 with seven assistants.

Opposition to the Government came chiefly from the proRussian section of the population. A focus for this disaffection was afforded by the Russian legation in Teheran, presided over by Mr. Rothstein. On various occasions during the year prominent citizens of Teheran found it advisable to take refuge in this building. On March 15 Mr. Rothstein protested to the Government against the summary suspension of certain newspapers and the punishment of the editors. When the Commission of Deputies was appointed to advise the Government at the end of April, Mr. Rothstein renewed his propaganda, and fomented a bitter anti-British campaign in the Teheran press. On June 27 the Government suspended two papers for attacking it, and on the 28th it deleted from a third an article against the British Government. During the next month, however, owing to the success of the Bolshevik forces in the neighbouring state of Bokhara, its attitude began to weaken, and it commenced to incline more to the side of Russia. But early in September a number of the Teheran papers were again suspended, and this led to a strike of printers. Finally on October 10 Persia concluded a Treaty with Russia, by which it undertook, in case of a war between England and Russia, to allow Soviet forces to attack Mesopotamia through Persia. The Persian Chief of the General Staff, Ismail Khan, went to Moscow.

In August the military prestige of the Government was enhanced by the complete success of the Persian offensive against Simko, chief of the Kurdish outlaws, who had long been a thorn in the side of the country. The rebel stronghold at

Sheharich, west of Lake Urumiah, was captured, and Simko himself forced to flee. To counterbalance this success, however, about the same time some 250 troops were ambushed and cut up by the tribesmen in the Bakhtiari country.

AFGHANISTAN.

The conclusion of the Treaty between Afghanistan and England at the close of 1921 marked the end of a long period of friction between the two countries; and the seal was set upon the new relationship between them by the interchange of ambassadors which soon took place, Major F. H. Humphreys reaching Kabul as British Minister at the beginning of March, about the same time that Sirdar Abdul Hadi Khan arrived in London as Afghan Minister to the Court of St. James. In an interview to The Times Hadi Khan said he thought the Treaty would strengthen trade relations between Afghanistan and India; he also said that his people were beginning to be better disposed towards England. But naturally the foreign power with which Afghanistan felt most sympathy was Turkey, and in February an Afghan mission arrived in Angora with an autograph letter from the Ameer expressing the warmest sentiments towards the Turkish Government, and stating that he had urged the British Government to abstain from assisting the Greeks. Towards Russia Afghan sentiment was at first rather unfriendly. There were in the country a large number of refugees from Turkestan who were hostile to the Soviet Government; and many of these rallied to the flag of Enver Pasha when on behalf of the Bokhara Government he made war on Russia in the early summer. But the successes of the Russian arms soon caused a marked change of sentiment in Afghanistan. On June 17 there appeared in the Ittihad-i-Mashriqui of Jelalabad an obviously inspired article strongly disapproving of the anti-Bolshevik insurrection in Turkestan and advocating relations of disinterested friendship all round. This policy was energetically pursued by Mohammed Wadi Khan, who in July, on his return from his world diplomatic mission, had become Foreign Minister in succession to Sirdar Mahmud Beg Tangi. On August 15 he issued a statement that he regarded the disturbances in Bokhara as a purely internal affair, the Russo-Afghan Treaty of last year having agreed to recognise the independence of Bokhara and Khiva.

During the Near Eastern crisis in October Afghanistan remained outwardly calm, but that it had been profoundly impressed by the success of Turkey was shown a couple of months later when the Times of India published the terms of a new Treaty between Afghanistan and Angora. In this document Afghanistan acknowledges Turkey as its "suzerain," i.e., as heir to the privileges of the Caliphate, and recognises the independence of Bokhara and Khiva. The chief object of the