§ 37. Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Arabs and how many Jews in the Jerusalem enclave contemplated by the Royal Commission's Report in Palestine, in Haifa, in Tiberias, in Safad, arid in the protected enclave of Aqaba, respectively, now possess the status of British-protected persons within the meaning of Section 32 of Chapter XXII of the report; and what will be the number of Jews and Arabs, respectively, and their respective proportion to the total population coming under the sovereignty of the suggested Jewish state after the deduction of those excluded from such sovereignty as being British-protected persons?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreI am not in possession of the information asked for in the first part of the Question, and I do not consider that l should be justified in imposing on the Government of Palestine the labour of obtaining it in present circumstances, especially as the boundaries of the enclaves in question have not yet been fixed by the proposed boundary commission.
§ Colonel NathanDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think it premature to make a statement of Government policy to the Permanent Mandates Commission without this vital information?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreNo, certainly not.
§ 38. Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who will represent His Majesty's Government at the next meeting of the Permanent Mandates Committee in regard to the Royal Commission's Report on Palestine; whether the Administration of Palestine will be represented and, if so, by whom; whether there will be made available to the Permanent Mandates Committee such part of the memoranda and public evidence placed before the Royal Commission as are now printed and available; and whether the Permanent Mandates Committee will be invited by His Majesty's Government to defer consideration of the matter until it shall have had before it the complete evidence given publicly to the Royal Commission?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreHis Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom alone is represented at meetings of the Permanent Mandates Commission. The Administration of Palestine is not represented. I propose myself to go to Geneva as accredited representative of His Majesty's Government, and I shall be accompanied by Mr. J. Hathorn Hall, who has just vacated the appointment of Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine and who will also be accredited, and I shall be accompanied by Mr. Martin, the Secretary of the Royal Commission. In reply to the third part of the question, this is covered by the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 12th July, and the reply to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.
§ Colonel NathanWill not the right hon. Gentleman submit to the Permanent Mandates Commission the evidence which is now printed and available, and would it not be lacking in courtesy to the Permanent Mandates Commission if it were withheld from them?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreNaturally I shall withohld nothing which they ask for, or require, that is published. Anything that is available, they will have.
§ 39. Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His 1774 Majesty's Government propose to take any and what steps to ensure that representatives of Arabs and Jews, respectively, are given an adequate opportunity of presenting personally their views on His Majesty's Government's statement of policy to the Permanent Mandates Committee before that body completes its consideration of the matter or remits it to the Council of the League of Nations, or how otherwise His Majesty's Government propose to take steps to ensure that any representations which Arabs and/or Jews may desire to make to the Permanent Mandates Committee and / or the Council of the League shall be brought to the notice of the Mandates Committee and /or Council before either body is invited to give an opinion upon His Majesty's Government's statement of policy?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreThis is not the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. Any representations which may be received at Geneva, either direct or through His Majesty's Government, from Arabs or Jews will presumably be dealt with by the Permanent Mandates Commission in accordance with the procedure to be followed in the matter of petitions concerning Mandated Territories which has been approved by the Council of the League.
§ Colonel NathanIn a matter of this importance to Arabs and Jews alike, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it desirable that they should be invited to present their views to the Permanent Mandates Commission on such a fundamental change in the policy of His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreI am no longer a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and it is for that commission to regulate its own procedure.
§ Colonel NathanWill the right hon. Gentleman, then, invite the Permanent Mandates Commission to defer considartion of this matter until representations have been made by or invited from the Jewish and Arab organisations proper to make such representations?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreI think this is a matter for the League and not for His Majesty's Government. It is perfectly clear that, particularly in a case of this kind, we ought not to seek to interfere with the complete independence of the 1775 Permanent Mandates Commission, whose members are there individually and not as representing Governments. It would be improper for me to make representation to any members of the commission?
§ Colonel NathanHas not His Majesty's Government taken the initiative in causing this special meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission to be called, and would it not have been proper to have deferred that course until the Jewish and Arab representatives had had an opportunity of considering the report and preparing and submitting representations?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreNo, the exact contrary is the case. The commission themselves decided without consultation with the Government to hold a special meeting. It has been postponed in order to meet the very points which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.
§ Mr. DaltonDoes the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the commission will come to a final conclusion at the meeting which is to begin on 30th July, or will that be a preliminary canter?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreAs to a final conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman can see from this report that a whole series of steps requiring concurrence of the League will have to be followed. What we are anxious about is that at the earliest possible moment, if the commission are agreeable to that course, they should make a report to the Council which will enable the Council in September to authorise the Government to proceed with such matters as the Boundary Commission and other initial stages of the procedure.
§ Mr. A. HendersonWould it be possible for representations to be made before there is a final decision?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreOf course it will.
§ 40. Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communication from the administration in Palestine for or against the report of the Royal Commission?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreThe answer is in the negative.
§ Colonel WedgwoodMay we take it that the report published in an Arab newspaper to the effect that the administration in Palestine had protested against 1776 Galilee being passed over to the Jews is false?
§ Mr. Ormsby-GoreYes, and it was publicly contradicted in the local Press by the High Commissioner. I have a telegram here. But it was not the fault of the local newspaper. What they published was an extract from the "Londoner's Diary" in the "Evening Standard" last week which had no foundation.