HL Deb 03 December 1930 vol 79 cc439-54

LORD ISLINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they consider it is in consonance with public policy that—

  1. 1, the acquirement of large tracts of land in Palestine on inalienable trusts by Jewish bodies should be allowed;
  2. 2, conditions should be allowed to be inserted in leases or tenancy agreements from such bodies preventing the lessees from employing any but Jewish labourers on the lands comprised in such leases or tenancy agreements.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask your indulgence while I make a very few observations in explanation, and possibly elaboration, of the Question I have put to the Government, and which now stands on the Paper in my name. I think all will agree that this problem in Palestine, coupled with the Mandate as it stands to-day, is becoming increasingly difficult and grave. I deplore it, though I confess I am not surprised at it. I have asked the Question whether it is in consonance with public policy that contracts should be inserted in Jewish land purchases, making all such land inalienable, and secondly, whether on this land so purchased no non-Jews should in any circumstances be employed. To my mind this is one of the most amazing provisions that I have ever seen inserted in a contract, and I will ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with his widening experience of that. great office, whether he can give to the House any instance similar in character and in stringency to this provision which has now been inserted in the Palestine agreements, operating in any other part of the British Empire. I might add this, because it may not be in the knowledge of noble Lords, that to make sure of this stringent condition being fully operative, there is a further clause which lays it down that a fine of ten Pales- tinian pounds shall be the penalty for a first offence, and that in the case of a third offence the Jewish occupant of the land shall be evicted.

I would like also to remind your Lordships that this lease is very carefully stated or explained in Sir John Hope Simpson's Report, on page 53. The country is now fully informed, thanks to the most careful and searching Report of Sir Walter Shaw s Commission, and also to the Inquiry by Sir John Hope Simpson, of the condition of affairs after eight or nine years of the Mandatory system in Palestine. I would recommend noble Lords who may not have read either of those Reports to do so, and to become fully informed of the situation as it stands to-day, and to realise how potential it is of a grave condition, possibly in the immediate future. What does this proposal mean? What does this arrangement mean? Palestine, a very small country, about the size of Wales, mainly inhabited by Arabs, is already going through the process of becoming a series of Jewish sanctuaries, where the land for all time is to remain in the hands of the Jews and where those who occupy those sanctuaries can alone be Jews, employed as Jews. All Arabs therefore are excluded from this mainly Arab country. The land is by this process, becoming permanently annexed to the Zionists.

I would like to give your Lordships a quotation which will be found on page 54 of the Hope Simpson Report, because it has an interesting bearing upon the condition which forms the subject of my Question. The Report says:— The most lofty sentiments are ventilated at public meetings and in Zionist propaganda. At the time of the Zionist Congress in 1921 a resolution was passed which solemnly declared the desire of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people in relations of friendship and mutual respect, and, together with the Arab people, to develop the homeland common to both into a prosperous community which would ensure the growth of the peoples'. This resolution is frequently quoted and has been well-advertised as showing that Zionism cherishes the highest possible sentiments towards the people of Palestine.

Then there is a very recent quotation on exactly the same lines from evidence before the Shaw Commission, given on behalf of the General Federation of Jewish Labour. It says: — The Jewish labour movement considers the Arab population as an integral element in this country. It is not to be thought of that Jewish settlers should displace this population in order to establish themselves at its expense. This would not only be impossible, but from a political and economic standpoint would run counter to the moral conception lying at the root of the Zionist movement. Jewish immigrants who come to this country to live by their own labour regard the Arab working man as their compatriot and fellow-worker, whose needs are their own needs, and whose future is their future. Your Lordships can see the marked contrast between these professions in public and the actions in private of the Jewish Agency, and I hope you will mark that. contrast in connection with anything that may take place in the future. I venture to say there is no practice that can be quoted, both in regard to land and labour, which is so arbitrary and so exclusive and has such an interfering effect on the people of the country as that which has been introduced into Palestine.

And, of course, it is a direct violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations. You have only to read Article 22 to see. It is in direct contravention and violation of the Palestine Mandate itself; because it is laid down so clearly that there can be no mistake, whatever legal quibble may be advanced as to the meaning of certain sentences, that in establishing a Zionist Home full safeguards to the civil and religious interests of the Arab and non-Jewish population are to be provided. After what I have read it cannot be advanced by anyone that there is any hope in this unhappy country of peace and good feeling between the two races that are now being thrown together. You have only to read through the Reports and also the White Paper—the fairest and most satisfactory summary of those two Reports and the best document in my judgment that His Majesty's Government have issued during their term of office; you have only to read those -Reports and you will see how absolutely opposed to the high sentiments I have quoted the methods now employed by the Zionists are.

But some people may think that this policy is only of yesterday. It is nothing of the sort. The conception dates from about ten years before the War. I should like to quote the following from the diary of Mr. Herzl, a very prominent Zionist, under date June 12, 1904:— In taking over land we shall also bring prosperity to the country. Private owners oust be quietly dispossessed. The poor folk will go over to us. This work of expropriation, and the emigration of the poor must be carried out with the utmost care and consideration. Possessors of real estate will think they are cheating us, and will ask too high a price, but they will never be able to buy anything back. So this policy of alienating land for all time within this small country was seriously contemplated in the Zionist movement as far back as 1901. When you associate that with the evidence before the Commission by Mr. Sacher and Mr. Jabotinsky, both very prominent and vigorous Zionists, you will see what their view is about future immigration into Palestine. In the course of their evidence am not sure whether both said it., certainly one did) the Commission were informed that they anticipated that immigration would take place at the rate of 30,000 a year until such time as there would be 1,500,000 Jews in Palestine. If that is to take place, what is going to happen, both during its process and still more at the time of its realisation, to the unfortunate native population, numbering about 700,000 Arabs and non-Jews?

You have to-day a very grave state of affairs in Palestine, and any one who reads either of these documents will see what an urgent one it is. You have Arabs, who, with their fathers before them, have been occupying land for generations, for all practical purposes expropriated. To-day they are landless and workless, and in many instances on the verge of penury. It is perfectly true that there have been monetary compensations to certain of them, but monetary compensation in Palestine to those simple fellaheen is a very different thing from alternative land. And in every case where Arabs have been displaced in order to make room for immigrant Jews there certainly ought to have been placed at their disposal alternative land. When we do these things in this country we do not begin to displace people, whether for sanitary purposes or whatever it may be, until we have found accommodation for those who have been displaced. And why should this sacred trust for civilisation, as it is called, be the one exception under the British Crown?

When you take these three things in combination—the endeavour and intention steadily to appropriate land for Jewish purposes, the number of those who are going to be accommodated, and the land that therefore must be found—and when you combine them with the subject of my Question as to whether it is public policy to make this land for all time exclusive to the Jews, and for all time to be used only for employment for the Jews, I am sure your Lordships will see what a very serious and dangerous path we have entered upon in this Mandate. Through this kind of thing we have already had three explosions—one in 1920, one in 1921, and a more serious one in 1929; and, unless effective measures are taken, I have not the slightest doubt that we shall hear of another before very long. The Arab is no different from any one else. If this kind of thing were done in any part of England, Wales or Scotland, I should not wonder what the result would be. What we mete out to our own country we should mete out to these countries which are committed to our charge and for which, and for the population of which, we are responsible.

Naturally I am saying no word against His Majesty's Government, because I think in this case at any rate that they have done better than any of their predecessors. They have produced a White Paper which is a really sound and fair-minded document. We have had too little fair-mindedness in this Zionist movement. It is one of the peculiarities of those connected with the Zionist policy that they seem to be incapable of recognising the requirements of the people in the country of Palestine. Had the Mandate been properly administered by the Mandatory Power during the past eight years, I do not hesitate to say that we should have had a very different class of Jew immigrated into Palestine. Many of the Jews that have been immigrated into Palestine, to the tune of 80,000, would be undesirable in any country, and why on earth, merely for the sake of building up this home, they should be allowed to go in I cannot understand. The reason, I take it (and this again I get from the Report), is that the duty of the Mandatory Power carefully to scrutinise the immigrants and see that their qualifications were economic rather than political, was delegated to the Jewish Federation when, of course, it ought to have been held most strictly in the hands of the officials of the Government of Palestine.

I understand from the White Paper and from the speech made by Dr. Shiels, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I hope it will be repeated again by the noble Lord who is to answer my Question, that a new chapter is to be opened in regard to this Mandate, that proper scrutiny will be given and that much greater care will be taken that those who are allowed to be immigrated may only be immigrated in, consonance with the economic capacity of the country so that there shall not be these unfortunate people in a state which is fast becoming desperate. Finally, and this is my Question, I should like to hear, as I am sure your Lordships would like to hear from the Government, that at the earliest possible date they intend to take steps to make nugatory this inalienable provision of land and also this most stringent condition of Jewish labour. I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Notice.


My Lords, in listening to my noble friend's speech I confess I rather wondered whether he would have any word to say in support of the policy which was laid down in what is now known as the Balfour Declaration. I assume that he is by no means friendly to it however it may be interpreted. I do not desire to discuss to-day any of the subjects to which he referred, mainly for the reason that I understand that discussions are at present proceeding, which certainly I would not enter upon. I intervene simply because I cannot think that the statements he made fairly represent the position. My noble friend seems carried away by the Report of the Commission and the White Paper which has been issued by the Government, the latter being in his opinion the best document which has ever been issued by them. Evidently, it meets with his complete approval. But I do not think he would venture to assert that that is the general opinion.

There are only one or two observations which I wish to make at this moment, because the Government will reply to the noble Lord's Question. What my noble friend seems to forget entirely is the posi- tion with regard to the Jews who come to Palestine by virtue of the Declaration which was made, which was accepted by this country in the Mandate, and for which, of course, this country is responsible. Let me state first that I have never been a member of the Zionist Association; I have never been a member of the Jewish Agency, or taken any active part in the work of Palestine. My interest in the main is as a citizen of this country and, I will add, as a member of the Jewish community. For that reason, of course, it is obvious that I should, perhaps, take more interest in the question than some who may look open it from a more detached point of view.

What are the complaints that my noble friend makes with regard to the two Questions that he asks? One is that the land is inalienable. So far as I know, that has existed ever since what was called the Jewish National Fund was instituted some twenty-eight years ago. No question has been raised about it. It was actually in existence as a form of lease or occupation agreement at the time that the Mandate was accepted, and no question has ever been raised with regard to it until the issue of the White Paper. I will not discuss the terms of it. It may he said that that does not condemn it. As far as I am aware—correct me if I am wrong—there is nothing in that which says it is objectionable. There is a reference, undoubtedly, but that is all.

Do let us understand the position in order to deal fairly with those who have instituted this form of lease or tenancy. The purpose of making the land inalienable is that the land, purchased with money which has been subscribed voluntarily from all parts of the world, should be retained so that it should be there for the purpose of colonisation by the Jewish people who immigrate there, and that it may serve as land on which the Jewish peasant will live, which he wil! cultivate, on which he will bring up his family, and which his family will work with him. That is the purpose of it, and I doubt very much whether anybody would assert that that is objectionable. These immigrants into the country go there for the express purpose of settling. The money that is found for them is not their own but is provided for them in order to enable them to settle. I should imagine that the first thing that had to be provided against was that when once a settler was there he could let his land and let it, no doubt, to those who would employ cheap labour and he would live on the proceeds of the land without really cultivating it. That is the exact opposite of what is intended. I should have thought it would have been very bad indeed for the Palestine settlement if that could happen. What is provided now is that that should not happen. I submit to your Lordships that that is quite a wise policy.

The second objection raised by my noble friend is that there is a provision against employing other than Jewish labour. Surely, that must follow from the policy that I have indicated, and also, be it remembered, the Jewish population which comes there has to be supported. The money has to be found for it, and is found by the Jewish people throughout the world. There is no question of expropriation. I was rather astonished to hear my noble friend use the word. That word has a very definite meaning, and when he used it he compared it with expropriation in, this country, but expropriation has nothing whatever to do with this matter. This is land which is purchased, voluntarily sold by the Arab fur the sum which lie obtains for it, and then, naturally, having got his compensation, he can do what he likes with his money. I should be surprised to hear, if there is a voluntary sale of land, that it is incumbent upon any community to see that there is other land provided for the vendor, which he can again sell, and go on ad infinitum. I think my noble friend, when he did mention the Commission Report, might have referred in fairness to the fact that it dealt with this point. Although I do not profess to quote the exact words, it did definitely say that these Arabs who had been dispossessed had not been ungenerously dealt with and compensated by the Jewish purchasers of the land, and by those who are responsible for administering Palestine. On one point I think I do agree entirely with my noble friend.


May I be allowed to contradict my noble friend? Unfortunately I have not got the Report with me, but in that Report are the actual conditions of lease. It is as clear as possible. I do not profess to have any knowledge of law but I do, I hope, understand my native language. It is as clear as possible in those leases that the land, once bought by a Jewish Company, has for all time to remain in the possession of Jews. Whether it is a wrong expression to call that expropriation in an Arab country I will not attempt to try to argue.


I did not controvert a word of what my noble friend had said with regard to the inalienability of the land. On the contrary, I agree with him. My objection was to the word "expropriation," because it would convey to most people, I think, something evidently more than was intended by my noble friend. I was about to observe that I did agree with my noble friend in some of the observations that he made, although, I confess, they were only a few. It is essential that in Palestine the Jew and Arab should live in peace. That that is the policy which should be pursued, I do not suppose any one of your Lordships would controvert. Neither the one nor the other can really be happy unless there is peace amongst them, and the real difficulty at the moment, particularly after the occurrences which I will not characterise that occurred so recently, is to get them now to work together in peace as members of one community, although of two different nationalities. I agree that everything should be done in order that we may he able to bring that about.

The only reason I felt bound to intervene is that from the knowledge which I have acquired of these matters from reading the White Paper and these Reports, and from the interest that I have taken and do take in the whole subject, I do feel that my noble friend —I am perfectly sure quite unwittingly —was doing a great injustice to the Jewish community in many of the observations that lie made. I think, perhaps, that he will not be thanked by the Government for the statement that the White Paper was the best document that they have ever issued. I very much doubt whether there is any member of His Majesty's Government who would like to rise at this moment and say, at any rate, that it is a document that has given them the least trouble.


It is not the fault of the Government.


All that I would now say is that I do hope, as the result of all the discussion that may be taking place with regard to the document, something will emerge which will enable the Jewish community to feel that in this country we are recognising an honourable obligation which we have undertaken, and which, let me say, leaders in Parliament of all three Parties have endorsed, and that in future there may not be discussion as to whether or not this Government, or any other Government, is receding from the obligations which it undertook with the League of Nations. I would commend that to His Majesty's Government. I am sure it is not necessary to say, and certainly I will not say, anything farther. I hope as a result of all that has taken place lately we shall have something like a settlement of the difficult questions involved, for there are difficult questions, and that there will be satisfaction to those who have settled there, relying upon the promises not only of the British people but also of the League of Nations, and resting upon what was said by Lord Balfour whose Declaration is always adverted to with satisfaction and with some pride, and for which he is honoured throughout the world.


My Lords, the conditions and restrictions in favour of the Jews and against the non-Jewish population of Palestine to which my noble friend Lord Islington referred, are, so far as I know, entirely without precedent in any part either of this Empire or of our mandated territories. The noble Marquess with, if he will allow me to say so, that sweet reasonableness which always characterises his utterances, sought to justify those conditions by repeating, not verbatim but in substance, the arguments which were used in favour of these conditions by the General Federation of Jewish Labour, and which are referred to on pages 54 and 55 of the Report. I dc not say they are identical, but they were in substance the same. May I dram your Lordships' attention to Sir John Hope Simpson's comment upon the arguments put forward by the General Federation of Jewish Labour? He says on page 55:— All these arguments are thoroughly logical, and have a basis in fact. They are, however, irrelevant, in view of the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate. May I read to your Lordships Article 6 of the Mandate? In substance it carries out the Balfour Declaration to which the noble Marquess referred. Article 6 says:— The administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions. Your Lordships will notice the words "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced." The view of Sir John Simpson is that these arguments, which are used by the noble Marquess with such force and such plausibility, are contrary to the provisions of Article 6, and he goes on to say:— The principle of the persistent and deliberate boycott of Arab labour in the Zionist colonies is not only contrary to the provisions of that Article of the Mandate, but it is in addition a constant and increasing source of danger to the country. It is not unimportant to see what is the authority which has imposed and seeks to enforce these conditions. The authority is the Jewish Agency in Palestine, with the assistance of its subordinate bodies known as the Jewish National Fund and the Palestine Foundation Fund. Your Lordships will remember that the Jewish Agency is a body which directs the affairs of i he Jewish National Home and which was formed for the express purpose of advising and cooperating with the administration of Palestine under the Mandate.

But, what is not so often realised is that behind, and in some cases above, this Jewish Agency in its policy of discrimination in favour of the Jews and against the Arabs, is the General Federation of Jewish Labour. If your Lordships will turn to page 126 of the Hope Simpson Report you will find how the General Federation describe themselves. They describe themselves in a memorandum which they presented to the Palestine Commission in these words:— The General Federation of Jewish Labour is the largest organised body within the Jewish population of Palestine. It numbers 27,000 members, men and women, and encompasses the whole range of the organised activities of the Jewish working class in town and country. And then there is a long description of their activities. So your Lordships will see there are these two exceedingly powerful bodies operating for the purpose of enforcing what appear to me to be very unfair conditions and restrictions, and unless the Government are prepared to put some limits upon their activities the result will be not only a danger but, as I think, a grave injustice to the Arab population.

Let me just touch upon one other point which the noble and learned Marquess referred to and which has been already dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Islington—that land is inalienable. The noble and learned Marquess thinks that is reasonable. I venture to suggest that it is an entire innovation in the tenure of land in Palestine by private individuals or private companies. It is quite true that there is a very small area of land in Palestine—20,000 or 25,000 acres —held as the property of the Wakf, and the explanation is that that land is held under that tenure as dedicated to the Deity for religious or charitable purposes. That bears no analogy whatsoever to land held by the Jewish Agency for the purpose of favouring that particular race. In the case which is now under consideration, the land—I will not use the word expropriated because the noble and learned Marquess, if I may say so, does not like that term—is extra-territorialised. No Arab can ever buy or lease it. It is a sort of enclave in the land of Palestine which is for ever set aside, not by the Government but by some Jewish body, for the benefit of the Jews and the Jewish immigrants from which the native Arab is for ever excluded. The noble and learned Marquess said that has been going on some time; I think he said twenty years.


Twenty-eight years.


But the direct evils of it have never come prominently before the Arabs or the public until after the Mandate when, according to Zionist views, the whole object is to get as far as possible the land as a land of the Jews, and to either remove or largely diminish the Arab population of the country. So much for this inalienability which appears reasonable to the, noble and learned Marquess.

As regards the prohibition of Arab labour, I regard this as a deliberate boycott of Arab labour. We have seen that Sir John Hope Simpson says that it is a "constant and increasing source of danger to the country." Let it not be said—I do not know whether it will be said by the Government or by anybody else—that land held on those conditions is relatively small in extent or will be small in future. The fact is that this policy which we have been discussing is at the moment confined to the Jewish colonists, who hold, as I understand, about 67,000 acres or a little more of the cultivable land in Palestine. But the General Federation of Jewish Labour is seeking with very considerable success to extend that policy to the colonies of a body which has been now in existence some time and which is known as the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association. That Association holds something like 114,000 acres of the cultivable land of Palestine, and if the efforts of the General Federation of Jewish Labour are successful and this policy and these restrictive conditions are extended to those 114,000 acres, the matter will be even more serious than it is to-day.

I have only one or two more words to add. The noble Lord, Lord Islington, quoted from the Hope Simpson Report two passages, one from the Zionist Congress of 1921 and the other from the memorandum of the General Federation of Jewish Labour in 1929, expressing the most benevolent sympathy and desire to co-operate on the part of the Jews with those whom they call their fellow workers, the Arabs, the fellow workers whom they have boycotted from having any part or lot in labour on this Jewish land. May I add one short quotation from a very important person, Dr. Weizmann? Dr. Weizmann in conveying the text of a resolution of the Zionist organisation—I presume the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Islington—to the Government, wrote:— The Zionist Organisation has, at all times, been sincerely desirous of proceeding in harmonious co-operation with all sections of the people of Palestine. It has repeatedly made it clear, both in word and deed, that nothing is further from its purpose than to prejudice in the smallest degree the civil or religious rights, or the material interests of the non-Jewish population. Having given utterance to that very excellent and admirable sentiment, they proceed to buy land in as large amounts as they can upon the condition that no Arab must ever occupy it and no Arab labour be ever employed on that land. If that is carrying out what Dr. Weizmann wrote, or carrying out the sentiment already referred to, then, at any rate to me, language has very little meaning.

I entirely agree, if I may say so, with the closing words of the noble and learned Marquess. If Palestine is to progress, you must have, as he said, peace in Palestine. The Jews and the Arabs must work at peace with each other. But meantime so long as this policy in regard to land bought by Jewish organisations subsists, I urge His Majesty's Government to do something, by Ordinances or whatever the correct method may be, to stop this policy of grossly unfair discrimination between Jews and Arabs. It is contrary to Article 6 of the Mandate, it is entirely inconsistent with the declarations of the Jews themselves, which have been already quoted, and it is certain that, if it is allowed to be persisted in as it stands at present, it will lead to discontent, disorder and danger.


My Lords, I hope you will excuse me if I say that I do not think it is desirable at this juncture to say anything on the larger aspects of the Question to which the noble Lord, Lord Islington, has drawn attention. I feel that I must go back to the particular inquiries which the noble Lord put to me, and I hope that he will not think me evasive if I say that the Questions cannot possibly be answered with a simple Yes or No. There are a great many inquiries of that kind which cannot be properly answered with a mere affirmative or negative. The inquiries relate to two subjects: (1), the acquisition of large tracts of land by corporate bodies and trusts prohibiting alienation, and (2), the insertion in leases or tenancy agreements of conditions prohibiting the lessees from employing any but Jewish labourers.

Let me point out, to begin with, that under the law of Palestine neither of those actions is unlawful, and the Government have made no proposals for any amendment of the law which would make them unlawful as such. Then I am asked whether either or both of these proceedings are in consonance with public policy. I can only say that it seems to me to be a question of degree, and perhaps also of the manner in which the action is taken or the objects with which it is taken. Quite clearly it would be t, relevant consideration in a case where results are likely to be produced which would be in conflict with the mandatory obligation of the Government towards all sections of the population of Palestine. It must be remembered, however, that the holding of tracts of land on inalienable trusts has long been common in Palestine, and elsewhere where the trustees represent various religious communities. It is not only the Jews who have acquired land on leases forbidding alienation. There are also the Moslem bodies which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and there are other demominations which have acquired land for various purposes. Further there are philanthropic objects, and so on, so that it is no new thing.


Might I ask the noble Lord what are these other religious denominations which hold inalienable land?


I am sorry, but I am not able to recite them. They are religious denominations, some of which will occur to noble Lords, but I have not the particulars of any of their acquisitions. There are others, and the process is not peculiar to one religious denomination, thought I must admit that in all probability it would be found that Jewish acquisitions are larger in extent, and perhaps different in purpose, from most, perhaps all, of the others.

As to the insertion in leases or tenancy agreements of conditions specifying a large class of persons who shall or shall not be employed, it can hardly be suggested that such a contract is so far contrary to public policy that it ought, as such, to be generally prohibited by law. At least it would require a good deal of very definite evidence as to the harmful effects which were produced before we could propose to make any such conditions contrary to law. I am old enough to remember when conditions with regard to the persons who should be employed were very common in quite humble contracts made in this country: "No Irishman need apply," "No Catholic need apply." That used to be quite common in my youth. I am not commending it. I think it was a regrettable action, or, let us say, an un- charitable action, and I am glad to say that in England those advertisements, at any rate, seem to have become less common. But I do not know that it was ever considered necessary or desirable to prohibit such discrimination by law.

It is all a question of degree and of the manner in which it is done and the extent to which it is done. The noble Lords, Lord Danesfort and Lord Islington, quite rightly referred to the Report of Sir John Hope Simpson for the suggestions of this experienced administrator as to some of the objections to the manner and degree in which these things have happened in Palestine. My own conclusion is, as I have said, that it is very largely a question of the manner in which these principles have been applied and the extent to which the practice is carried on. With regard to the wider considerations which the noble Lord has adduced in connection with this Question, and which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and by the noble and learned Marquess, I can only say that they and all other relevant considerations will be duly borne in mind by His Majesty's Government in the complete execution of the Mandate, incorporating as it does the Balfour Declaration, and applicable as it is, not to the Jews alone, but to all sections of the population of Palestine. These matters will be duly borne in mind by the Government in the execution of the Mandate to which this country is irrevocably committed.