practice the banishment of British subjects under that Enactment occurs very rarely, if ever, and we are not disposed to claim that a British subject enjoys in a Protected State the privileges to which he is entitled in a British Colony or even in a British Protectorate. We do not, therefore, recommend.any special action in connection with the deportation of British subjects from Protected States, but we suggest that the expediency of adopting, where the deportation or banishment of any persons, whether British subjects or not, from Protected States is in question, the procedure which we have suggested in the earlier para- graphs of this report might with advantage be considered.
14. Our terms of reference require us to give consideration to the question of the deportation of British subjects from Mandated Territories. In this con- nection we have examined the terms of the respective mandates. We find that Article 6 of the Mandate for the Cameroons provides that "the Mandatory shall secure to all nationals of States members of the League of Nations the same rights as are enjoyed in the territory by his own nationals in respect of entry into and residence in the territory and the protection afforded to their person and property ", etc., etc. Article 6 of the Togoland Mandate and Article 7 of the East Africa (Tanganyika Territory) Mandate contain provision in identical terms. In these territories, therefore, it appears to be impossible to make provision by law for the deportation of nationals of any State member of the League of Nations, except on terms which will apply also to British subjects. The provisions of the Palestine Mandate are not so clear. Article 18 provides that "the Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Pales- vine against the national of any State member of the League of Nations.. as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters. concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or pro- fessions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft". There is not precise provision, as in the other mandates, regarding entry into and resi- dence in the territory, and the protection afforded to person and property. Nevertheless, having regard to the general intention of the Palestine Mandate it appears to be clear that there should be no discrimination in this respect in favour of British subjects, and we are of opinion that action in Palestine should be guided by the considerations which would have governed it if the Mandate had contained the same provisions as the Mandates for Togoland, the Cameroons, and Tanganyika Territory.
15. It therefore becomes necessary to consider whether the policy to be followed is one of levelling up "or levelling down". It would be possible to leave British subjects in the Mandated Territories under the same liability to summary deportation which clearly attaches to aliens in the United Kingdom. The alternative policy would be to apply to British subjects and consequently to the subjects of all States members of the League of Nations the same privileges and protection against summary deportation which are in force, or are recom- mended by us, in British Colonies and Protectorates. On the whole, we favour the adoption of the "levelling up" policy. We therefore recommend that in Mandated Territories, as in Colonies, specific grounds for deportation should be stated in the law; that no person should be deported unless written charges have been laid against him, bringing him within one of the provisions of the law, which involve liability to deportation; that such charges should be made the subject of a judicial enquiry and that it should only be competent for the authority conducting such an enquiry to make a recommendation for deportation, the actual order, if made, coming from the Governor (or High Commissioner) in Council. While we have based these recommendations on the principle of "levelling up", we do not think that the limiting periods which we have pro- posed for British subjects and British protected persons in Colonies and Pro- tectorates (v. paragraphs 7-10 above) should be applied (to a much larger class of persons) in Mandated Territories.
We observe that the Palestine Immigration Ordinance (No. 32 of 1925) aiscriminated between persons who are Palestinian citizens and others, the former not being liable to an order of deportation. This discrimination should of course. be retained. We observe, however, that the powers of deportation under Article 69 of the Palestine Order in Council are applicable to Palestinian citizens as well as to other persons. The High Commissioner at present possesses drastic