§ 36. Mr. COCKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the members of the Palestine Commission were given the opportunity of examining an accurate copy of the correspondence which passed between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif Hussein in 1915 and 1916?
§ Dr. SHIELSNo, Sir. As the Commission have pointed out, it clearly did not fall within the scope of their inquiry to examine and comment upon that correspondence.
§ Mr. COCKSIs the hon. Member aware that on page 194 of the Report the Commission states that they saw this correspondence and that it gave an inaccurate version, and that it was withdrawn on the instruction of the Commission? Why should the Commission have to put up with an inaccurate version when it is within the province of His Majesty's Government to give an accurate version?
§ Dr. SHIELSI would point out that the Commission made it quite clear that all they were concerned with was the interpretation put upon this correspondence, and not with the merits of the correspondence.
§ 37. Mr. COCKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the publication of the Report of the Palestine Commission, he will reconsider the question of publishing the correspondence which took place between July, 1915, and January, 1916, between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif Hussein?
§ Dr. SHIELSThe answer is in the negative.
§ Mr. COCKSIn view of general feeling among the Arab population of Palestine that this correspondence promised the Arabs their independence, will the hon. Member reconsider the question and publish the correspondence, so that we may know whether or not the Arabs were promised their independence?
§ Dr. SHIELSThis question has been before the House on many occasions and has been considered by various Governments, and it has been decided more than once that it is not desirable to publish this correspondence. I must adhere to that decision.
§ Mr. THURTLEDo not the Government want to play fair by the Arab population?
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURYIs it not very unfortunate that we have not a clear view of this correspondence, and would it not be better to have it published in black and white so that everyone would know what did happen?
§ Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEIs it not desirable that this unfortunate feud should not be perpetuated by the asking of supplementary questions in this House or by any further correspondence?
§ Mr. COCKSIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House at an early date.