MANDATE FOR PALESTINE.

HL Deb 15 June 1921 vol 45 cc559-63

LORD LAMINGTON had on the Paper a Motion to resolve—

" That it should be the duty of the Government to inform the League of Nations that the wishes of the people of Palestine had not been consulted as regards the Mandate for Palestine, and that therefore Article 22 of the Convention has not been complied with."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I should like to congratulate the noble Duke (the Duke of Sutherland) who, I understand, is going to answer me this afternoon, upon his taking his seat for the first time on the front Ministerial Bench. He is already High Commissioner for Scotland, and I dare say that this marks the beginning of a career of great political distinction. The matter of my Question is in the form of a Motion, but I think it has gained added force in view of the remarkable speech made yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place. Referring to Palestine he then said:— The difficulty about this promise of a national home for the Jews in Palestine is that it conflicts with our regular policy of consulting the wishes of the people in the Mandated territories. His phraseology is not exactly correct, because, by Article 22 of the Convention, it is not a question of whether we wish to consult the wishes of the people, but it is an obligation imposed upon the Mandatory Power to consult the populations interested.

The short paragraph bearing on this point reads as follows:— Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a state of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised. The wishes of those communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. My noble friend, the Leader of the House, whom I should like to congratulate on his elevation in the Peerage, admitted last year, when I addressed the House on this Question, that the people of Palestine had never been consulted as to who should hold the Mandate for their country. He said he had no doubt that the wishes of the people were that Great Britain should hold the Mandate; at the same time, no official inquiry had been held in any form. But he admitted that even if they did wish to have us as the Mandatory Power that wish would be very much qualified by the fact that our Mandate would contain a provision that a national home for the Jews should be established in Palestine. I think he was quite right in saying that, because whilst it might be quite possible to give to a child a spoonful of jam containing a lot of noxious medicines, the child would not be pleased with the jam in that condition. That is practically an analogy in regard to this Mandate as held by us.

I might remind the House that an International Commission on the part of France, Italy, the United States of America and ourselves, was appointed to ascertain the views of the people of Palestine, but in the end the United States of America were the only people who sent any Commissioner to make inquiries. As I have before mentioned in this House, the Report has never been made public. Therefore, the fact remains that, in defiance of Article 22 of the Convention, the wishes of the people of Palestine have never been ascertained. It may have been impracticable, or even undesirable, at that time, to find out what their wishes were, but it seems to me to be extraordinarily innocuous to ask that this patent fact should be made known to the League of Nations, the body which is responsible for the carrying out of the Mandate in future.

I cannot see any possible objection to informing them of the fact. If they are not so informed, it is possible that some unpleasantness may arise in Palestine in the future, the League of Nations may interfere in some form or another, and the people of Palestine may say: "We do not admit that we are under the Mandate at all, because our wishes have never been ascertained." Therefore, the fact that the League of Nations were not in possession of all the circumstances of the case might possibly circumscribe or stultify their action. I hope that the noble Duke who will answer me will be able to say that this very simple matter will be carried out on my suggestion, and that the League of Nations will be properly apprised of our exact position in regard to our holding of the Mandate for Palestine. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, "That it should be the duty of the Government to inform the League of Nations that the wishes of the people of Palestine had not been consulted as regards the Mandate for Palestine, and that therefore Article 22 of the Convention has not been complied with."—(Lord Lamington.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

My Lords, the noble Lord has revived a subject which has already been discussed in your Lordships' House. I would mention in particular the debate on April 20 last, in which my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry stated the case on behalf of His Majesty's Government. If noble Lords will refer to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations they will see that the words used are: The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. Nothing is said in the Article about consulting the communities as to the terms of the Mandate. Yet that is the Question which is now before the Council of the League. The Council has no concern with the selection of Mandatories, which, as was clearly laid down in Article 94 of the Treaty of Sevres, rests with the principal Allied Powers. In these circumstances it would not be relevant to the consideration of the question now before the Council to bring to its notice the point raised in the noble Lord's Motion.

His Majesty's Government have, however, no desire to evade the question whether Article 22 of the Covenant has or has not been complied with. The point was fully dealt with by the noble Earl the Leader of the House in the debate on March 14. The noble Earl then explained the extent to which the inhabitants of Palestine and other Mandated territories of the Middle East had been consulted, and the limits within which the principal Allied Powers found themselves confined in the selection of Mandatories. He referred in particular to the declaration made by Mr. Balfour in November, 1917, in which His Majesty's Government stated that they viewed with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and that they would use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. That declaration, as I need not remind your Lordships, was subsequently embodied in Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres and thus acquired the formal sanction of the principal Allied Powers.

As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated yesterday in another place, there can be no question of a departure from the policy of that declaration. It necessarily limits and prescribes our action in Palestine. It would be useless to pretend that the policy is at present popular with the Arabs, who constitute the majority of the population, or that the carrying out of such a policy can be regarded as in accordance with their wishes. But apart from that question, in which all the principal Allied Powers are committed, there is no reason to suppose that the people of Palestine do not desire the continuance of the British connection.

Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the language used on this point on March 14 by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who said:— If the question of the Jews be left on one side I do not think that there is any doubt at all that, given the desirability of a Mandatory, and that I think will be universally conceded, the Arabs of Palestine would sooner have the British than they would have any other foreign State. Therefore I think, so far as the selection of ourselves is concerned, the noble Lord need not feel any doubt upon that point. I am aware that reference has been made in this House to the existence of an American Report, drawn up by an American Commission after visiting the spot, tending to show that the people of Palestine would prefer the United States to Great Britain as their Mandatory.

As was explained in the debate on April 20, the Report has never been published and there is, in fact, no copy of it in the possession of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord who has moved this Resolution expressed the opinion on that occasion that we might at least inform the League of Nations as to the existence of this Report. I am afraid I do not agree with him. The Report, whatever may be its merits, is not relevant to the question now under consideration by the Council of the League of Nations, which, as I have already explained, relates solely to the terms of the Mandate and not to the selection of the Mandatory. I can see no reason why His Majesty's Government should go out of their way to draw the attention of the Council to a document which has never been communicated officially to themselves and the contents of which, so far as they are known to us, have no bearing upon the problems with which the Council are now dealing.

LORD LAMINGTON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Duke for his answer, but I confess I cannot agree that His Majesty's Government are not evading the point of my very simple question when they say that the League of Nations are not concerned with the acceptance of the Mandate. I want to give the League of Nations direct information, which, so far as I can see, cannot do any possible harm, It may not do any good, but it cannot influence their future action adversely, while it will put them in full possession of all the circumstances that bear on this case. This might be of use to them possibly on some future occasion. In the circumstances, however, I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division, though, I confess, the answer is extremely unsatisfactory.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.