91. Mr. BECKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Palestine Mandate will not be ratified by the British Parliament; and whether, seeing that the League of Nations' action of July last in approving the Mandate should not be sufficient to bind this country to indefinite expense, this House will in future be informed of any action that the League of Nations is taking that will lead to more expenditure for this country, so that a strong protest may be sent from the British Parliament?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThe first part of the question raises a constitutional issue of some importance. A Mandate is not in the nature of a Treaty between Governments which requires ratification by the respective heads of the States concerned. No question arises of ratification in a technical sense. I would remind the hon. Member that the House was given definite opportunity in the Debate of the 4th July last, of discussing the question in its widest aspects. The 264 result was a clear pronouncement in favour of the policy of the Government. With regard to the last part of the question, the hon. Member may rest assured that the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations will receive no instructions which the Government are not prepared to defend in this House.
Mr. PETOAs we now have a new House of Commons, can a fresh opportunity be given of discussing this question?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREAn opportunity will arise when the Middle Eastern Estimates for the new year come on, and the House can decide whether there is to be a change of policy on that or on the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHOn what authority is the hon. Gentleman speaking when he says that it is not necessary that the Mandate should be ratified by the House of Commons?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI have consulted the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the authorities of the Foreign Office, and they framed the answer to this part of the question.