ALLIED FORCES BILL [Lords].

HC Deb 21 August 1940 vol 364 cc1350-90

Order for Second Reading read.

4.28 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I am glad the first Bill which I have to move in my present office is one that will commend itself to the approval of the House. In its main three Clauses it is really an expression of one of our war and peace aims. In his stirring review of the situation yesterday the Prime Minister said that although their countries had been overrun, the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians are still in the field, sword in hand, recognised by Great Britain and the United States as the sole representative authorities and lawful Governments of their respective States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th August, 1940; col. 1168, Vol. 364.] He added that we have also recognised in General de Gaulle not a sovereign Government, but an authority recognised as representing the feeling and faith of free Frenchmen outside occupied France. The object of the Bill is to enable those Governments to play the part which they desire to play in the war. They are not to be regarded as merely refugee Governments. Every one of them wishes to share in the strain and sacrifice of the war as well as in the fruits of victory. Every one of them in some measure commands the means to play its part in the war. Some of these Governments command forces belonging to all three Services, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, some have forces belonging to only one or two of those Services, but all of them command forces of some kind. We might have sought to absorb these military elements into our own services so that they would fight under the British Flag—

Mr.Wedgwood (Newcastle under-Lyme)

Hear, hear.

Sir E. Grigg

I am sure, in spite of my right hon. Friend's interjection, that the House generally would agree that that course would not have been consonant with the spirit and purposes of the great enterprise to which we are dedicated in this war. We are not fighting for British freedom alone, and therefore we are not fighting for a purely British victory. We do not wish to dominate the Governments that are allied with us, either now or hereafter. We wish them to be our honoured partners in this enterprise, not only in winning the war but in building up a better Europe after the war. It is in that spirit and as a symbol of that aim that the Government is seeking, very gladly, to give legal sanction to the establishment of no less than six foreign Armies on British soil, to be trained under their own flags, under their own commanders, and under their own military law.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

Will the hon. Gentleman name the six?

Sir E. Grigg

Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France and Czecho Slovakia. The process is easy because the legal arrangements which are necessary for the purpose are, in point of fact, already in operation as between the free nations of the British Commonwealth. We have only to apply to each nation the legal arrangements already approved by this House in what is known as the Visiting Forces (Commonwealth) Act, under which the Dominion Governments control their own forces when they are in this country and we control ours in the Dominions. I am glad that that is so, for the parallel is a valuable one. In this matter, as in all matters, freedom is second nature to us, and we find it easy to share, just as easy as to share the air we breathe.

The provisions of the Bill are simple. I will briefly recapitulate them. Clause 1 confers the powers upon the authorities of the foreign Governments in this country. Sub-section (1) of this Clause confers them on the Sovereign Governments in this country which we have recognised as our Allies, and Sub-section (2) on the foreign authority which we have recognised as being in general control. Sub-section (3) deals with the powers of enforcement of these powers.

Mr. Wedgwood

Precisely what powers?

Sir E. Grigg

Powers of enforcement similar to those which exist in regard to Dominion forces in the Visiting Forces (Commonwealth) Act. This Sub-section provides the necessary machinery for enforcing the various foreign codes, and it also deals with the action which our civil authorities are to take in regard to the arrest of deserters, the power of billeting, etc. Clause 2 is a safeguarding Clause. It preserves in all essentials the jurisdiction of our own civil courts in respect of offences against the law of this country. When an offence is committed against the civil population of this country the matter comes under the jurisdiction of our civil courts and will be dealt with under our own law.

Mr. Ballenger (Bassetlaw)

Is it not the case that quite often-at any rate in regard to minor offences-one of our own soldiers is handed over to the military authorities, on the request of his commanding officer, to be dealt with under military law? Will the same procedure be followed in the case of foreigners?

Sir E. Grigg

In regard to major offences against our civil code, even our own soldiers are tried in civil courts, and here we are making special arrangements to see that offences against our civil law are treated in our own courts.

Mr. Bellenger

All of them?

Sir E. Grigg

All of them. Clause 3 provides for the contingency in which some very small foreign force or detail is serving as part of a larger force, and it provides for discipline in that case through mixed courts-martial on which both our own officers and officers of the foreign Power concerned will sit. Those are the three main Clauses of the Bill. Two questions arise which may be asked. The first and most pertinent one is this: Is the foreign military law to Which we are giving sanction in this country repugnant in any way to the principles of the law of this country? We have been into that question very carefully, and we find that these codes are very similar to our own.

Mr. Wedgwood

Including the French Foreign Legion code?

Sir E. Grigg

I refer to the codes which are dealt with under this Bill. I do not know to which particular code my right hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Wedgwood

My right hon. Friend knows that the French Foreign Legion has much stricter discipline and much more severe punishments than we should tolerate in the British Army.

Sir E. Grigg

The code to be introduced by General de Gaulle is, I understand, the code in general use in France —or the code which was in use before the capitulation. I hesitate to say what is the code of that fragment of the Foreign Legion which still exists, and make a reservation about that; but in regard to the bulk of his force, the ordinary military law which has prevailed in France is to be in force. There may be differences between the military codes to which we are giving sanction in regard to military offences, that is to say offences solely within the scope of military life, and offences in which the civil population is concerned. There are two big differences in the Polish law. The Poles make death the penalty for desertion and for wounding to avoid service in the field. In our code the penalty is imprisonment for life. But that is a matter entirely between the Polish authority and its own nationals, and is not a matter, therefore, in which we should interfere. But when it comes to civil offences, that is to say offences in which the population of this country are concerned, there is also one considerable discrepancy. In the French code normally applied in France the death penalty is imposed for rape, and that is contrary to our code; but, as I have already explained, rape, being a crime against the civil population, would come under Clause 2 and would fall to be dealt with in our own courts under our own law. We are also introducing a special article into our agreements with the Powers concerned under which the jurisdiction of our own courts in all these matters is carefully preserved.

The other question that may be asked refers to the command. How will the command of these forces be provided for, in the course of operations, their disposition in this country, and so on? In principle, these foreign forces will be at all times under the British High Command in its character of the Allied High Command, but the forces will be used as far as possible as operational formations under the command of their own officers within that Higher British Command. Where necessary we are detailing British instructors to familiarise these forces with British material and British practice. The question of the command is also being dealt with in an article of the agreements which are to be signed.

I think that I have given a description of the main points in the Bill and I feel the House may very well be proud to pass it, because a new birth of freedom is implicit in it. It represents, I believe, the inmost aspirations of at least 100,000,000 human beings at present under the Nazi heel. Britain at this proud hour is no mere home for helpless refugees. Britain, on the contrary, is a cave of Aeolus in which are penned for the time all the great liberating winds which through the centuries have swept the dark mists of oppression and barbarism from the life of human kind. This wind may be penned for a time, but not for long. I am confident that the day will come, brought nearer by this Bill, when this wind will sweep across the English Channel and the North Sea and drive out the foul miasma in which millions of our fellow human beings at this time are drawing every breath in misery and in pain.

Miss Rathbone (Combined English Universities)

I should like to ask two questions. The first is how far the conscription laws of the country to which a man belongs will affect him. If a man has not been conscripted but would be conscripted under the law of his own country is he, while resident in this country, to be conscripted into this foreign force? Secondly, I should like to know whether there is any provision against racial or religious discrimination in these foreign forces? Would it be permissible for discriminations to be exercised against a national on the ground of his being a Jew or belonging to any particular racial or religious section?

Sir E. Grigg

In regard to the second question there is no racial discrimination in the Code which we apply here—none whatever. That question might arise in the administration of the Code, but it is not in the Code itself.

Mr. Bellenger

Is there any safeguard against that?

Sir E. Grigg

We have no reason to believe that anything that will be done under these codes will be contrary to the spirit of our own Code or of our practice in this country. The second point on which the hon. Lady asked me a question was whether, under the Bill, it would be possible for foreign authorities or Governments to conscript their nationals. The answer is "No." There is no such power in the Bill. I believe that there have been discussions on that point, but the point is not covered in the Bill; it lies entirely outside the Bill.

Miss Rathbone

That means that these are voluntary forces and that people are not compelled to serve in the national forces of their Governments?

Sir E. Grigg

I would point out that most of the troops are already serving, but there is no power to conscript those who are not.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith (Keighley)

The speech which has just been delivered by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War contained some very stirring passages and was very eloquent on the effects of the Bill. At the commencement of his speech, he devoted some time to what is clearly the main problem which has to be settled before any Bill like this can be brought before this House. There was the alternative of taking these foreign forces and just lumping them into the British Army, without giving them any special national identity of their own. If that had been done, the problems and difficulties which the Bill has to solve would not have arisen.

If one had been considering this issue merely from the point of view of administrative convenience, or even of practical efficiency, that would have been the plan with the greater number of advantages on its side, but, as the Minister very rightly pointed out, a very much larger issue had to be decided. I think the decision was right. It was difficult, but, in spite of the difficulties, it was essential that these foreign Governments, after being invited to come to this country, should have their own national armies here. These armies are the symbol of nationhood to millions of people and to their enslaved countrymen throughout Europe. I trust that, when the time arrives to which the Prime Minister pointed yesterday, and when there is a great resurgence in those countries, these armies will be the spearhead of the Forces of liberation and will see them through their present perils and trials. So, I accept the broad decision which the Government have made.

That being so, there is only one major problem which arises to be dealt with by the Bill, and it is that if these nations have their own armies and administration, it is not reasonable to say that they must have the British code of discipline and language, which they do not know, but must have their own codes, according to the decision which the Government have made. That is inevitable and right, The special difficulty with which we have to concern ourselves is whether these codes should contain any provisions, especially in regard to penalties, which we could not tolerate being carried out on British soil, such as penalties involving corporal punishment. On this point I should like quite definite assurances.

I understand, in regard to the special matter of the French Foreign Legion, that its penalties are not enforced in the Metropolitan Army of France itself, and on French soil, but only in places like Morocco. It is only reasonable to ask General de Gaulle that the code which he carries out among the French Legion shall he the code of France and not that which is carried out elsewhere; it is only reasonable to ask that that should be made clear. So far as the other forces are concerned, it is well known that none of the codes contain provision for corporal punishment. The main questions which one asks have, I think, been answered, but I should like an assurance. I can see that these forces have codes different from our own, but I cannot say, on the whole, that they have stricter codes than ours, as can sometimes be seen by looking round their quarters.

I understand that, in these foreign countries, the conception that the Army and the military should be subject to civil jurisdiction is rare, whereas in this country that is an overriding conception in the whole of our Constitution. I understand —and I hope that I am right—that this point is fully safeguarded in Clause 2 and that the jurisdiction of the civil power over the Army for any offence committed against a civilian is just as strong in regard to foreign armies as it is with regard to British troops.

I believe there is some misunderstanding among these foreign Governments, at any rate some of them, with regard to one point to which I would call the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary. The hon. Lady asked whether the Bill permitted conscription to be introduced. If the Attorney-General is to reply to the Debate, this may be a point for him to deal with. The Joint Under-Secretary's reply was, most emphatically, "No." It is clear that the Bill contains no provision of that kind, and from the reply I take it that no French or Dutch man in this country can have conscription imposed upon him, either to-day or in the future, under the Bill. There is evidently some misapprehension on that point, and I would call the attention of the Attorney- General to action which has been taken by the Dutch Government. We have had correspondence with Dutch subjects, and here is an official notice sent out by the Netherlands Ministry of Defence. I will read it. It was sent to Dutch subjects on 9th August. It states: I hereby summon you for military service in the Netherlands army. You are requested to report on the 20th August, 1940, before 4.0 p.m. Then follows a number of particulars, and later are these words: He who does not comply with the above mentioned Regulations is guilty of an offence, and will be liable to punishment according to paragraph 120 of the Military Penal Code (Non-compliance with lawful summons for military service). The document is signed by the Dutch Minister for Defence in this country. I am surprised at its being sent out. Clearly the Netherlands Government must be under a misapprehension as to their legal power. I am sure that they have no legal power to enforce this notice. The mere fact that a Dutchman is living in this country does not make him outside our law and put him inside Dutch law and under the Dutch Government. They have no power under British law, because the Military Service Act excludes foreigners living in this country.

Mr. Lewis (Colchester)

Is it desirable that able-bodied Dutchmen, for example, should be able to come here and shelter behind our Armed Forces, and be able entirely to escape from taking part in the struggle?

Mr. Lees-Smith

We cannot have foreign Governments sending out notices to nationals in this country asserting that they have a right to impose upon them obligations which are not within the law. Either the joint Under-Secretary's statement about the law is not correct or the Dutch Government are acting under a misapprehension. I should like to see that dilemma resolved. With regard to the question just put to me by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), the answer is "No," but I cannot at this moment approach or pronounce upon that problem at all. It is an issue which will have to be faced whether a young Frenchman or a Dutchman, who would certainly be a conscript in his own country, is to live here and carry on his ordinary life while British subjects of his own age are going into the Army. The answer to the hon. Member is that if this action is to be taken it should not be done with these notices but under our ordinary law, which includes hardship tribunals, tribunals for conscientious objectors and all the other machinery.

The Bill has been discussed by my hon. Friends in full meeting this morning. If we can have the assurance for which I have asked, they will be prepared to assist the passage of the Bill. I think it will not be long before the scope of the Bill is widened, and Germans, Austrians and others, proved to be friends of this country and filled with hatred for the Nazi regime, will be allowed, if they wish, to take their part, not only in the Military Pioneer Corps, but in the combatant Forces which are fighting Hitler. That is to our interest at this moment. We are in a position in which equipment is lagging behind the supply of men, but in a few months we shall have more than we require, and there will be the problem of providing for the man-power which we need. In those circumstances, what could be more foolish than to reject the clamouring desire of Germans and Austrians to take their share in defeating the vile power which has broken their lives? The Under-Secretary ended his speech with a fine tribute to these forces, and I wish to endorse that, particularly at this moment, when we see the repulsive and infamous spectacle of men who have given up their country sentencing to death the men who are willing to fight for it. Let us be critical, but let us be generous, let us be considerate with these little foreign armies here; because, when their countries are saved, men in those countries generations hence will be proud to say that they are the descendants of the soldiers, the fighting men, of those little foreign armies which are now on British soil.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Denman (Leeds, Central)

In welcoming this Bill, I want to raise only one point, on which I suggest the Bill does not go quite far enough. The Bill clearly emphasises a principle of great value, that human beings fight best when associated in units homogeneous in nationhood or in race. We are endeavouring to make the utmost use of all the good will that oppressed nations must feel towards us in our common contest, but there is one body of people who are left out; that is, the Jews. I ask the Government to consider whether they are making the utmost use of the help that that race wishes to give. That race, after all, has the very maximum desire to see the defeat of Hitler. The Norwegians and the Dutch and the others of the six have lost their liberty, but they can, at worst, look forward to actual existence in a life of semislavery. The Jews have not even that outlook. For them, the victory of Germany and Italy in a great part of the globe means massacre and destruction. In not only Europe, but throughout the Western Hemisphere, too, you have a great potential source of power that can be more effectively used against the Germans and the Italians than is now the case. This Bill seems to envisage merely organisation by nations. For instance, a Polish Jew will come under the control of Polish officers as a part of a Polish unit. Is he likely to be as efficient a fighter under Polish officers as under officers of his own Jewish race? There is a great fund of potential strength here that we ought not to waste.

Of course, this problem is not merely an English problem; it is not merely a question of raising units in England. There are other places where Jewish forces can be organised. Have the Government considered this problem, and really determined to make the greatest use they can of the Jewish hatred of the Hitler and Mussolini régimes? Many of us have argued for years that the possibilities of Jewish strength have not been developed in our plans for organising our power in the Eastern Mediterranean. Whether more can be done at this moment in that regard, I do not know. The Government may not be able to say anything about that at present. But I ask them, in some future Bill if necessary, to expand the principle that we here accept so gladly, of creating units bound together by ties of nation or race, so that we may generate the maximum strength of the civilised world against the barbarians.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)

I am glad that the Government are taking steps to organise in one common unit the various Allied forces on our soil who are willing and anxious to play their part to the full in the struggle for liberty. We have been rather too much inclined in recent months to say, in a way that is quite understandable, "We stand alone against the enemy." It rather grates on some of our Allied friends, who have, if not vast armies on our soil, great possessions, at any rate, in different parts of the world. We forget their feelings, and it would be better if we were to go out of our way to emphasise that we are indeed not alone; that we have the physical and spiritual support of great nations and forces in different parts of the world— a fact which is receiving recognition in the Measure now before us. The Minister said that in this Bill we were dealing with six different nations, with the forces of Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Norway, Holland and Belgium, and those forces of France that are recognised. We all know what splendid services they are capable of rendering, and have rendered already. I should like to make one reference to the visit that, at the invitation of the Polish Government, I with seven other Members of this House paid to the Polish troops in France at the beginning of May, just before the great offensive started. Going from East to West of France, we saw the Polish troops in training. They had already been through the fire once in Poland and the East, and were preparing to go in a second time— as they have been in a second time. Now those troops are now over here, ready to play their part a third time in resisting an invasion of this country, and, indeed, in advancing upon enemy territory, too. That typifies the spirit of the splendid Allies that we have, and full tribute should be paid to them for their gallantry, under far more difficult circumstances than we in this country have yet come up against.

It would be a useful thing if we had some kind of InterAllied Council, on which the representatives of the British Empire could sit alongside the representatives of the six States mentioned today. Even if it had not very wide powers, it would be a symbol of unified purpose. It would hold up to the world the ideal for which we are striving in common, the conduct of human affairs for the maintenance of peace and decent conditions in the world. I hope that, although the Government have not yet made up their mind to set up such a Council, they will listen to the arguments and the pressure which I know will be put upon them to advance in that direction and to set up, as we did in the last war, an InterAllied Council of all those nations cooperating with us in any way. Although the Bill applies at present only to the limited number of States directly mentioned, there are others that may be expected to come in due course, in their particular spheres. What is the scope of this Measure? I believe that it refers only to action taken in the United Kingdom, but some of these forces may be operating on British Colonial territory. The Bill does not apply to them, does it?

Sir E. Grigg

It can be made to.

Mr. Mander

That is very important. It brings in other Allies. I hope and believe that it will not be very long before the Emperor Haile Selassie is once again in his Dominions, leading his people as part of an organised campaign, rendering us the greatest assistance in attacking the Italians and making their very small hold upon Ethiopia impossible to maintain. They are another Ally who may well come under this Measure in certain conditions, because they may be operating in Somaliland, Kenya, the Sudan and other territories around. Perhaps my hon. Friend, in replying, will confirm that it is contemplated that they will come under the Bill. Then there are the Albanians. At present they are confined to acting in their own country, where they are making things uncomfortable for the Italians; but they may operate outside. Then we have our definite Allies: Turkey, Egypt, Irak, who, no doubt for a very good reason, are not very active in the military sphere at present, but who are trusted Allies and who no doubt will be prepared in due course to play the part considered most suitable for them.

There are further friends who, in certain conditions, will presumably come under the terms of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) mentioned the case of the Germans and the Austrians. I entirely agree with him. I hope the time will soon come when we shall think it right to assemble those willing and wholehearted enemies of Hitler to play their part in organised military units. I should like to go still further. I believe that one of the finest things we am do in the way of friendship would be to make a wholehearted treaty of alliance with republican China. There are portions of the British Empire where there are large numbers of Chinese subjects, who would then come within the terms of this Bill. I have mentioned 13 or 14 possible Allies who, in one way or another, might be assembled together, even at this early stage. I would like to ask a question about the French Foreign Legion, which has been already mentioned. How far is it proposed to bring it within the scope of the Bill, and is it intended, as has been asked, to confine it to French military law and not to the law which is generally operated inside the French Foreign Legion?

I entirely support what my hon. Friend said just now about our duty to make the fullest possible use of the contribution which the Jewish race can make at this moment of crisis. There is no reason why a Jewish army, formed not just from Palestine, but from all parts of the world where the Jews are animated by the desire to help in this great struggle, should not be encouraged to come forward and play their part as an ally of this country. Perhaps the Government can say whether they have anything of that kind in mind. I suppose that, if such an army were to arise in time, it certainly could come within the scope of this Bill if the British Government chose to recognise it, so that at any rate would be a step forward.

The question of compulsion has been mentioned. It is clear from what has been said that, if it is proposed at any stage to introduce an element of compulsory service in the case of foreigners on our soil, it would be done by a measure introduced expressly for that purpose, and I think that that is right. We ought to receive any suggestion of the kind with great sympathy. When we have compulsory universal service here, naturally, we cannot object to other foreigners on our soil being placed under the same law, if it is the desire of their Governments that that should be the case. Indeed, it would be much more natural for them to agree to anything of the kind, because, while we here are traditionally wedded to the voluntary system that we understand so well and have only abandoned under duress in the case of war, all those foreign countries whose names have been mentioned are entirely familiar with that compulsory system.

They do not understand the voluntary system; it has no very great meaning to them. It has been suggested that many of the Frenchmen over here who have not so far offered their services to General de Gaulle, if it were put to them as a matter of compulsory law, to which they are accustomed and which they understand, they would be far more willing to come in and give their services under conditions of that kind than if it were left to them, as it is now, and we said to them, "You can do just as you like; you can go back to France or stay here." They do not understand that sort of thing. They have never been brought up to it in their own country, and we ought to give very serious and sympathetic consideration to any attempt made by any of those Governments now in this country whose military units we recognise when they come and ask for compulsory powers to place their citizens over here inside the armed forces of their State. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would kindly make clear a point about which I am not quite clear. These units are being formed entirely of nationals of different States, and those nationals, if they so desire, can join any section of the British Army as an alternative. There are some who prefer one thing and some another. If there is any option, it ought to be as clearly expressed as possible.

I should also like some information about the system of pay and allowances. Has there been any attempt to systematise that and to arrange that there should be some relation between the pay and allowances given to British soldiers and other units and those in the various armies (hat we are now proposing to recognise? I understand that the pay in some of them is not upon a very high scale, and it may well be that that is a subject that ought to be reviewed, so that there should be no great disparity of terms between the forces in this country of the different Allies. I should be glad if some information could be given about that matter.

I have in the course of the years that have passed from time to time advocated in this House the formation of an international force, and it is, therefore, a matter of very great interest, and of some satisfaction to me, to feel that, under the disturbing events of this great war, such a force is now actually in being in this country, showing its practicability. The small armies of different countries in their separate national units are all willingly coming in under one supreme command. That is an example of the spirit in which we are all going into this struggle together, and I hope that it may be a forecast of the sort of system which we may see in the world after the war, when mankind will feel that it is its duty to join together and insist upon the maintenance of peace from one end of the world to the other.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Lewis (Colchester)

I would like, first of all, to make a protest, similar to that which I have ventured to make on some previous occasions recently, against the growing custom of taking Bills through all their stages in one day in this House. It is most unsatisfactory. It is not fair to Members of this House, and it is not calculated to lead to the best legislation. I cannot help thinking that a very little forethought on the part of those who arrange the business of the House could perfectly well result in our having, at any rate, a Second Reading of the Bill on one day, and the later stages on another. The Bill that is before us this afternoon is not a very long Bill, but it deals with a very novel subject. It is not easy for Members of the House to be sure precisely what the Government have in mind in introducing the Bill until they have heard the speech from the Minister who moves the Second Reading. Having heard that speech this afternoon, no Member has any opportunity now to think it over, to discuss it with other Members and to draft an Amendment, if he so wishes, and to give notice of that Amendment on the Order Paper to other Members of the House. That is now impossible. The only thing that any Member can do, if he suddenly thinks of something which he believes might improve the Bill, is to put down some hurried, illconsidered manuscript Amendment, and I submit that that is a very bad way of making legislation in this House.

With regard to the Bill itself, I appreciate that the Government have had some difficulty in deciding the best way to tackle the problem of the men of other nations in this country who are able and willing to fight in the Allied cause. I am a little doubtful whether, on the whole, the method chosen is the best. It has, of course, the advantage, as was pointed out by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War, that it is calculated to appeal to the national spirit in the oppressed countries from which these nationals come, if they see, however small it may be, a nucleus of their own national army. I appreciate that that is a strong point for the Bill. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the practical advantages of some kind of foreign legion as part of the British Forces, in which all other nationals in this country, who wished to do so, could serve, would have been the better way of dealing with the problem. In practice, it will be a little difficult. We are only a small island, and now we are to have seven armies, seven navies, and, I presume, seven air forces, all under their own separate codes and all working in this island. It does seem a little difficult, and there is the further practical drawback to which attention was called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). There is no provision in this Bill whereby the German or the Austrian, oppressed by the Nazis and coming to this country full of hatred for them and longing to fight against them, can be included. From those points of view it might perhaps have been better if the Government had elected to proceed by way of a special unit or units in our own Forces rather than providing facilities for those foreign forces to be raised to work with us. The Government have taken the other view, and I do not for a moment want to suggest that the matter is not one of considerable difficulty to discharge. They have taken the view that the better thing to do is to have these separate forces and to work them into our own system. Unfortunately, that is open, on the face of the Bill, to one very grave disadvantage. It leaves entirely untouched the most serious problem of all.

When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley was speaking, I ventured to interrupt him, because I understood that he was speaking for the Labour party, and I was anxious that his views should not be misunderstood. I gather that he and his party share my view that it is not reasonable that young men of military age should come here from Holland, Belgium and France, and should then sit down and say, "Now, you fight for us." That really is a posi tion which is not reasonable and which ought not to be allowed to continue. I am sure that we are only too pleased to give asylum to women and children and helpless persons from another country, but if, in a war, young men, able and fit to fight, come to us for sanctuary, surely they ought to be willing to bear a share of the common burden. That is entirely shirked by this Bill; it is not touched at all. It is a very unfortunate circumstance because it is a problem which ought to be faced, and I should have thought that any legislation of this kind would have been the opportunity to face it. Curiously enough, although the whole problem of the right of asylum to an able-bodied young man at such a time, without any corresponding obligation to defend the country that gives him asylum, is not touched by the Bill, it would seem that there is some little uncertainty as to the position of an individual from a foreign country if the Government of that country now stationed here desire to compel him to serve in that particular force.

We are fortunate to have with us this afternoon both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and I, personally, would be grateful if one of these two distinguished lawyers would answer this question: With regard to a French sailor who came to this country in a French warship, on what date does his leaving that warship, without the consent of his commanding officer, constitute desertion? What has happened? We said to these French crews, "You can stay with your ships if you like, or go back to France." No doubt some of those who first decided one way afterwards changed their minds. At what point of time does that action constitute desertion? I take it that in the first instance, when we took it upon ourselves to say what they should do, we should not allow French authorities to treat the fact that any man who had left his ship should be guilty of desertion. But it cannot go on for ever. Three months hence if some French sailor serving in a French ship gets tired of his job and does not like it, he clearly will not be entitled to say, "I am giving this up and going to Dover or Folkestone until some means can be found for me to go back to France." I would like one of the Law Officers of the Crown to tell me whether the original offer of the Government was only for a fixed period of time or whether the passing of this Bill will affect it. It is a serious consideration.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley read to the House a rather surprising document, issued on behalf of the Dutch Government, which touches a similar point. He raised the question of whether the Dutch Government were entitled to send to Dutchmen in this country notices saying they were required to join their force in this country subject to certain penalties. There is no doubt that the question of individual rights may raise issues with regard, for example, to Habeas Corpus. I can imagine legal issues arising in the event of one of these foreign military or naval courts trying a man for a military offence and it being argued that he is a person they should not try. That seems to be inescapable if you are to have some men of foreign armies in this country. I think it desirable that they and this House know what is the position generally with regard to present units, and I take the French unit as being the most important in point of size—

Mr. Mander

No.

Mr. Lewis

Well then, one of the most important. If one of the Law Officers of the Crown is willing to satisfy my curiosity in the matter of the French sailors and will also give some information on the point on which the right hon. Member for Keighley touched, about the action of the Dutch Government, I am sure it will be very welcome to the House.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I think we should look at all these Bills which come along rather with an eye as to what will be thought of them in Germany and America, and I do not think this Bill will convey a useful impression in either of those countries. I dislike intensely, just as other speakers do, the exclusion of the Jews from Galicia from the Allies who are forming armies in this country. It is becoming obvious to people in America and Germany that we do not treat Jews, who, after all, have the greatest cause to fight Hitler, as being quite of the same standing as other nationals. Further, we in this House know we are fighting a war which is not one of the old national wars; it is a war between two different religions, yet this is an attempt on the part of the War Office to get back to the old eighteenth and nineteenth century days of national wars. For the reasons that this is a reactionary attitude towards the real character of this war and the exclusion of Jews from the benefits of self-defence, coupled with their now being interned in this country, I look upon this Bill with grave doubts and suspicions. I hope we shall not accept the idea that we must pass it through all its stages today, because it is undoubtedly a difficult Bill to amend and will need careful scrutiny in order that there shall be proper amendment.

The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill told us it was to put our six Allies on the same basis as the Dominions. I hope that is so in every case, because men of the Dominions Armies in this country are paid a different rate from what the men of our Army are paid. Canadians and Australians and, I suppose, New Zealanders are paid a much higher rate and are paid by the Dominions taxpayers. Are all these new forces to be paid on the British scale, or is it possible, as in the case of the Dutch, that a higher scale will be paid, or a lower scale, as in the case of the old French Army? We ought to know, before military discipline is enforced upon these armies, the sort of scale they will he paid, and we ought to be able to decide for ourselves whether that scale will be satisfactory. I think that in the case of most of them payment is made from the accumulated funds of these countries, but it cannot be so in the case of the French, which is not a recognised Government. If we are to pay the French, I think we are entitled to decide what they are to be paid and see that there is no unfair discrimination made between our own men and those in the Allied Armies.

Before we pass this Bill I think we might also receive from the Under-Secretary of State for War an assurance that the people in these various national armies are really nationals of the State with which they are supposed to be serving. I suppose there is no doubt that the Dutch were all born as Dutchmen and no doubt about Norwegians and Belgians, but there is certainly grave doubt about the Polish and French armies. The Polish army was formed in France, and the bulk of that army over here is the army that fought in France. That army was recruited in France more or less under duress. Refugees from Poland were given the alternative of internment or joining the army, with the result that a lot of Jewish refugees from Poland went into the army. They did not find themselves very welcome there, and certainly the feeling of Poles towards Jews can only be paralleled by the feelings of Germans towards Jews. They cannot be treated as Poles. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary what proportion of the rank and file of the Polish army are really Jewish refugees. If the number is considerable, and even if it is not, those people should have the option of being exempted from that army at the present time.

Mr. Lipson

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is his authority for saying that the Jews of Poland in any large number do not want to be regarded as Poles? Surely the whole of their complaint is that they are not treated as equal citizens and that it is their desire that they should be treated as equals.

Mr. Wedgwood

They are interned in this country because they are Jews and claim to be Poles and when they get put into the Polish army they prefer to be treated as Jews and not as Poles.

Mr. Lipson

Surely, that is not correct. The right hon. Gentleman has said that they are interned in this country because they are Jews, but is it not because they are Austrians or Germans?

Mr. Wedgwood

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the trouble is that all Poles were born in Galicia, and it depends exactly on what country is their birthplace. What is the nationality of a person born in Germany in 1918? It is extremely doubtful, and in France many people of doubtful nationality were included in the Polish army because they had the alternative of going to a concentration camp. If my hon. Friend will consult with some of these Polish Jews, he will find that they are extremely anxious about this new Polish force and are desperately afraid that there is to be conscription of all Polish subjects, whether Jews or otherwise, in this Polish force. What I am trying to do is to get a definite assurance that that will not happen. The hon Gentleman said there would be no conscription, and he was faced with a demand from the Dutch Government that Dutch citizens should join.

Sir E. Grigg

I did not say anything of the kind—that there was no conscription. All I said was that they would not come under this Bill.

Mr. Wedgwood

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say it will require another Bill to be passed by this House? I do not think it will. The pressure that you bring to bear upon unfortunate nationals in this country—[Interruption] It is no use laughing at it. It is easy to do a thing if you are an executive Government without having any Act of Parliament to do it. All you have to do is to decline to renew a man's passport, and that was the method usually employed in the old days by the German Government. The power of rendering a man incapable of travelling is a serious one. It deprives him of a great many rights, and that is the screw most usually applied to get people to do what these European Governments desire to have done—deprivation of a passport. In any case it is desirable that we should find out from the Government how far nonnationals, in the sense of nonracial nationals, are included in the different national forces that we are setting up That applies even more to the French army. The French army includes a Foreign Legion.

I should like to give the House the recent history of the French Foreign Legion. They went to Narvik and did admirable service there. Unfortunately they were able to compare their own officers with British, and they came to the conclusion—I will not say unanimously—but all that I have come across were enthusiastic in their desire to get into the British Army and to get British officers over them. They gave various reasons, but the real reason is that the French officer is not of the same standing as the English. He has not the same ideas of treating his men well. He has not been trained in the same way. These people were sent over to France, they came back, disembarked and were put down near my constituency, where they remained for about a month. They were given the option of either going back to France or of remaining in the Legion under French officers. A great many of them refused both those alternatives. The Legion was full of men who had fought in Spain. There were 200 Spaniards and a large number of Balkan people, Rumanians, Italian anti-Fascists and people who had formed the International Brigade. What were they to do when they were given the option of going back to France or remaining under French officers in the Foreign Legion? The discipline, the conditions and the punishments in the French Foreign Legion are very different from what they are in the British Army—very different from any that we could permit to go on in this country in any circumstances. We cannot have flogging in this country. It was abolished in 1876, and it is not coming back. These men who were in camp near my constituency made many friends in StokeonTrent. Many of them deserted, and they have been kept ever since by my constituents. They fought in Spain, in France and at Narvik. They have had plenty of experience of fighting. Now some of them are hiding from the police in my constituency. Others are interned because they would not go back to France. They are still loyal members of the Legion, but they are still in gaol. The Spaniards played the game much better. Not wishing to be interned, they mutinied and refused to stop in the Legion. They allegedly opted for France, but when they got to the port a great number of them refused to embark. I will not give the exact number, because it is not necessary. They saved themselves. They were interned, but they were admitted into the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Force and are doing good work teaching men in the British Army how to use bombs.

We want to be quite certain before we pass this Bill that we are not passing a Bill which will keep still interned, at our expense, indefinitely, a lot of men whose only crime is that they refused to go back to France and preferred to serve under British rather than French officers. I think that under this Bill anyone who deserts will be imprisoned by the civil power. Are we to keep these people in prison indefinitely when their only crime is that they wish to fight with the British Army—they have fought for the cause already—and when their fellows who actually mutinied got away with it and are no longer interned and have joined up in the British Army? I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to try to get General de Gaulle to disclaim any authority over these men and to let them go. All he had to do was to say they should be quit of the Legion and he was glad to be quit of them. If he had got those men into the Pioneer Corps, they would be of some service to the country instead of simply a charge on the country. The matter is made more ironical when you think that these people, who are not French citizens —there are Belgians among them—are now being forced by the British Government into an army that they do not want to belong to. They want to belong to our Army instead. These are men of the Left, who have been doing good work for the cause. You will find also in the French army men of the Right. I want to know whether it is our money which is going to pay Prince von Starhemberg. We all know him. He is apparently now a French officer under General de Gaulle —a Jew baiter, commander of the Heimwehr against the workers of Vienna. He ran away when the fight came, he ran away again when Dolfuss was murdered and again at the Anschluss. He appealed to Hitler to use his services after the Anschluss and was indignantly refused. I think we may fairly ask that, if there is to be a French army, it should be composed of Frenchmen, that both the Left who are not French, and the Right who are not French, should be cleared out and that we should have what this Bill proposes, a national Army, not an Army of whom some Members on that side will doubt whether they are not too much to the Left and a good many on all sides will doubt whether they are not too much to the Right—whether Starhemberg is not too much to the Right to be fighting for the good old cause in the year 1940.

Let me bring the House back to the real, critical point about the Bill. We must not pass it today. We must get an assurance from the Poles that they will not use the powers of their Government to force into their army, as the only escape from internment, a large number of Jews who have learnt from bitter experience what it is to be under the Polish or the Nazi heel. Secondly, we should learn whether General de Gaulle is prepared to allow those who no longer wish to belong to his army, who are not French citizens by birth or by naturalisation, to leave. Finally, we may well regret that we have stuck to this ideal of its being a national war when it is really a religious war.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

The right hon. Gentleman says this is a religious war. Can he give us a little more enlightenment on that?

Mr. Wedgwood

I think the hon. Member knows that it is a religious war. I do not mean a war between Protestant and Catholic or between Christian and Jew, but a war between two ideals, the ideal of authority and the ideal of liberty. It is a war that has been going on throughout the centuries.

Mr. McKie

It need not necessarily be religious; it might be ethical.

Mr. Wedgwood

I do not understand ethics. This is a war between those who love individual liberty and those who love authority. It is a struggle which transcends all nationalities. All those who are on our side should be allowed to fight on our side. For these reasons I think we may accept the Bill if we can have this assurance from the French and from the Polish Government, but it will not be complete until we have the Jews of the world also able to fight on our side.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Goldie (Warrington)

I hesitate to intervene in this Debate, as I was not present when my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The House has just listened to a typical speech by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), but I shall not follow him by making any remarks on the ethical and practical matters which he has so properly put before the House. I rise simply to ask for information. No hon. Member has a more profound respect than I for Parliamentary draftsmen, but I confess I have read and reread Clause 2 of the Bill, and frankly, although I realise it must be due to a total lack of knowledge of ordinary English, I do not understand a word of that Clause. The Clause begins in a harmless and innocuous manner. It states: Nothing in the foregoing Section shall affect the jurisdiction of any civil court of the United Kingdom, or of any colony or territory to which that Section is extended, to try a member of any of the naval, military or air forces mentioned in that Section for any act or omission constituting an offence against the law of the United Kingdom, or of that colony or territory, as the case may be. Let me give the House a typical instance. Let us assume that a young officer in a motor car is guilty of a criminal act of omission, and a case of manslaughter arises. There can be no doubt that under the Clause he could be taken before a court of summary jurisdiction and ultimately proceeded against at Assizes or at the Central Criminal Court. Turning to Sub-section (3) of the Clause, one finds: A court shall not have jurisdiction by virtue of the foregoing Section to try any person for any act or omission constituting an offence for which he has been acquitted or convicted by any such civil court as aforesaid. So far the procedure is perfectly simple. If the person has been punished in a court of civil jurisdiction, a court formed under Sub-section (1) of this Clause cannot try him again. But what happens the other way round? For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the person is brought, in the first instance, not before a court of civil jurisdiction, but before one of the Army courts and is thereupon proceeded against under military law on a charge of manslaughter. If one looks at Sub-section (2), one finds: If a person sentenced by a court exercising jurisdiction by virtue of the foregoing Section to punishment for an offence is afterwards tried by any such civil court as aforesaid in respect of any act or omission which constituted that offence, the civil court shall, in awarding punishment in respect of that act or omission, have regard to any punishment imposed on him by the said sentence. Does this mean that when a man has been proceeded against by what I will call colloquially an Army court, and has been sentenced, he can then be hauled before a local police court and committed for trial on an indictment, and that His Majesty's Judge of Assize, in deciding what sentence he should pass, would have to take into consideration the sentence which had already been passed by court martial? It may be a question of my complete ignorance, but that is the way I read the Clause. One realises that in time of war, to use an old Norman phrase, "Autrefois convict" or "Autrefois acquit," as the case may be; goes by the board, but it seems to me that it is going very far indeed, if my interpretation of the Clause is right, to say that a man can be tried by one of these tribunals and then brought before a civil court, and that he cannot say to the civil court, as he could in the opposite case, "You have no jurisdiction; I have already been punished and cannot be proceeded against," and that when he pleads, "I have already received a sentence for that," the civil court must say, "We will take into consideration the sentence of imprisonment you have already received and pass a concurrent sentence of imprisonment." It seems to me that the Clause is loosely worded, and I suggest, with the greatest respect to the Law Officers, that this is a case to which consideration might be given on the Committee stage.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I think the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) reinforces the view that has been expressed by all hon. Members, with the exception of two who have spoken in the Debate, namely, that the Government ought not to attempt to pass this Bill through all its stages today. I add my appeal to the Government that they should not attempt to do this. The Bill is not one of very great difficulty, but it is one of great novelty, and it is obvious, when the Clauses are examined, that there are several points which would benefit by consideration and review in Committee. I do not think the Committee stage would be a very long one, but I think there ought to be a Committee stage on a different day from that on which the Bill has been introduced and explained to the House. I suggest to the Government that nothing would be lost if they made that concession. No one will deny that the sooner this Bill is passed the better, but there is no such great urgency about it as to justify our passing it with only a cursory examination, for it is only a cursory examination that can be given to the detailed provisions of the Bill when we are asked to pass it through all its stages as soon as it is introduced.

I wish now to make one or two general observations. It was with a very great deal of pleasure that I observed that the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War, in introducing the Bill, sounded a note very like the note sounded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I think that is an instance of the united feeling of this country in these days. There are very few occasions on which those two hon. Members find themselves in such complete agreement and give expression to sentiments that are really undistinguishable. It is true that my right hon. Friend thought that this Bill did not represent the best way of getting all the forces on our side in this war of ideas working with us, whereas the hon. Gentleman thought that this Bill was the best way of doing that very thing. But the important thing is that both of them now realise—my right hon. Friend has always realised it, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has—that this is a war of ideas, and that all of those on our side in this war ought to have an opportunity of helping us to win it. That is true not only of those whose age and physique enable them to offer military assistance, for there are other kinds of assistance that are equally valuable, such as technical assistance, the assistance which the ordinary maninthestreet, who has no special gifts, influence or wealth, renders to the common cause by leading a peaceful life under the law and adding to the general unity of the country and the uniformity of its efforts.

I do not wish to say anything which it would be more appropriate to say tomorrow, but I would observe that there are a great many people now in internment camps, and indeed in prison, all over the country who, if their ages and physique were different, would have been candidates for one or other of the forces legalised by this Bill, but who are not, because of age or physical disability. Are we to find some method of utilising their services in the way in which they can offer them, or are we, on the contrary, to continue with the policy which has been followed during the last month or two of treating these people in such a way that, because their place of birth happened by some unfortunate chance, or fortunate chance, to be within certain territorial, geographical, or political frontiers, everything else in their composition —their outlook, history, background, age, ideals, hopes—is to be disregarded, and for that reason they are to be treated as being, in the technical legal sense, enemy aliens, as though they really belonged to the other side in this war of ideas, when everybody knows that they do not belong to the other side, but to this side?

With regard to the method adopted in this Bill, I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I think it is the right method. It is extremely valuable and helpful that we should treat these bodies—some of them recognised as governments, others not recognised as governments—as coordinating authorities with authority to organise, as representing the countries from which they come, those forces that are in alliance with us. There is one other matter to which I want to refer. We must not close our eyes to facts, even when they are unpleasant and embarrassing, and in what I am about to say, I do not wish to increase the awkwardness or the embarrassment; I mention the matter merely in order that there may be an opportunity of removing the awkwardness or embarrassment. Everybody knows that in Poland before the war there was a great deal of the most bitter antisemitism. That is a fact beyond any kind of dispute, and I state it purely as a fact. The mere fact that the world has been at war for nearly a year has not, regrettable as it may be, completely revolutionised the psychology of everybody in the world. People who have been brought up in a certain atmosphere still find their minds conditioned by that atmosphere. There are Polish forces in this country. I do not want to exaggerate and, for reasons which I am sure will be understood, I do not want to refer to details or incidents, but incidents have occurred, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am certain that the Polish Government in this country do not approve of them or want them. I happen to know that quite recently General Sikorski issued, in the standing orders to his forces, instructions designed to combat antisemitism, which would be ridiculous in Polish forces in this country at this time—

Mr. Wedgwood

Or at any other time.

Mr. Silverman

Yes, but it would be in an even higher degree wrong for this House to lend support, legislative, financial, or any other kind, to forces that were willingly encouraging that kind of thing and allowing it to persist. I am not saying that the Polish Government are doing it. I am sure they are doing all they can to restrain it. I hope that that order will have some effect, and that it will be something more than a pious expression. The Government are in a position to make representations to those authorities where complaints can reasonably be made and to see that every step in their power is taken to prevent recurrence of undesirable incidents of this kind, and to promote the friendly comradeship which ought to exist between people fighting for the same purposes in the same army. We do not recognise in this country different grades of citizenship. There are no second-class citizens, and we ought not, in legislation, to give authority to other people who happen to be in this country to do things which, without this Bill, they could not do, unless we have some kind of assurance that they any more than we will not countenance any division in their ranks.

I would like the Joint Under-Secretary, if he feels able to do so, to say that the spirit in which I have approached this question is the spirit in which they look at it, and that they expect the Polish authorities will do all they can in that regard. It is not only the Polish authorities. Regrettable as it is, there is something on the Czech side, too, which needs a certain amount of care and attention. I am sure that these things will not be lost sight of. In drawing attention to these questions, I hope I have done it in a friendly fashion. It is certainly not my desire to embarrass anyone, personally or politically, and I hope that the result of this Bill, as soon as it is passed, will be to bring new strength and hope to all.

6.18 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somerville)

A request has been made to me that I should deal with two specific points. Most of the Debate raises a question of policy with which my hon. Friend will deal but before he replies perhaps I may be allowed to answer the two points which have been raised. The first was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). His question, I am afraid, I cannot answer, because it really depends on facts which are partially known to him, but which I am afraid are not known to me. But the principle applicable is, I think, reasonably plain. He asked about the position of a man in the French navy who came into our waters on a French ship. He said, and I am not disputing that he was right, that men in that position were given a certain option as to whether they went back to their own country, or whether they adhered to General de Gaulle and forces which it is contemplated will be covered by this Act. He asked on what date the departure from the ship would be desertion. The only answer I can give is that if the departure took place during the period when people were being expressly told they could be repatriated, clearly it would not be desertion, but if it took place after a clear adherence to General de Gaulle's forces, then it would be just as much desertion as it would be if one of our own sailors left his ship after he had solemnly undertaken the obligations which those in the Navy, Army and Air Force owe.

The second question was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie). He was troubled about Clause 2. He was quite happy about Subsection (1), which asserts the supremacy of the jurisdiction of the civil court. He found neither obscurity in the wording nor anything at all in the principle embodied in that Subsection. He was equally happy about Subsection (3), which provides that once a man has been tried for an offence by a civil court, a service court or court martial cannot try him over again. He has been dealt with once and for all. What he complained about was Subsection (2), which reproduces textually Section 162 (1) of the Army Act. Why is it in the Army Act, and why, being in the Army Act, is it in this Bill? was his question. The reason is, I think, fairly clear, although one hopes that the possible evil which it prevents is unlikely to occur or recur. What it says is that if a man has been tried by a courtmartial, he can be tried by a civil court for the same offence, but that if the civil court convicts him, when it comes to sentence him it must take into account any sentence which he has already served. That emphasises the supremacy of the civil jurisdiction over military jurisdiction. Suppose a military and a civil court were not on quite good terms, which, of course, they are. Suppose a man commits a theft, not in the barracks, but in the streets. That can be dealt with under military law. Suppose the military authorities said that they liked this man and that they would hustle him before a courtmartial where he would be dealt with sympathetically and would be kept for only a month. But for this Subsection in the Bill it would have ousted civil jurisdiction.

Mr. Goldie

My memory of military law is not what it should be; but surely if you are convicted by a courtsmartial you can plead "Autrefois Convict" before a Civil Tribunal.

The Attorney-General

Never. That is one of the ways in which the superiority of the civil jurisdiction has always been affirmed. Although I quite agree that it is extremely unlikely to occur in our own courts-martial or with these Service courts, we did not think it right to omit from this Bill a provision embodied in the Army Act which asserts the superiority of civil jurisdiction. We thought it right to follow the words of the Army Act.

Mr. Lewis

The Attorney-General tells us that if a French sailor came over here in a French warship and he was offered option to return to France after the French ceased to fight, but he opted to adhere to General de Gaulle's forces, if such a man, after so adhering, left his ship without leave, he would be guilty of desertion. Do I understand that the French naval authorities will have the right, under this Bill after it becomes an Act, to try men in their forces for offences committed before this Bill was passed?

The Attorney-General

That is quite a different point. I have not had time to consider it, but, of course, the normal rule is that legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless it expressly so provides. The hon. Member has not put that point to me before, but prima facie I would say "No."

Mr. Wedgwood

Can the Attorney-General say something about the question of whether these Governments can enforce conscription?

The Attorney-General

My hon. Friend will reply, no doubt, to that.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)

There is one point that I wish to raise before the joint Under-Secretary replies, connected with what has been said by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). The Joint Under-Secretary told us that the military law for some of these Allied countries confers the right of courts-martial to pass sentence of death in a number of cases where British courts-martial have no such right. I believe that the particular case referred to by the hon. Member for Colchester would be one of those cases. A French sailor or soldier might under French military law be considered to have deserted before this Bill was introduced, and might be tried under a French court and condemned and executed. I am sure that would not be the desire of the Joint Under-Secretary or the British authorities and we ought not to run any risk of a situation of that kind occurring.

There is another possible danger which might occur. It might be that during the long weary winter some of these people exiled from their own country for one reason or another might find themselves in a position in which they were induced or persuaded to leave their post, and for that they would be guilty of desertion. I do not want to minimise the gravity of such an offence. It would be very far from consistent with our traditions in such a case if we had the death sentence inflicted and carried out by an Allied force on British soil. I hope we may have an assurance on this point and that if possible some Amendment might be introduced on the Committee stage to safeguard the position. I think the most satisfactory way would be to secure that where a death sentence is illegal under British law for British subjects it should not be applied by these courts. We can at least ask that there should be an assurance from the Allied authorities that they would not use powers conferred by this Bill to carry out sentences of death in such cases. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will give us an assurance on that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) referred to cases of flogging. I am sure that that would be extremely repugnant to all British citizens, and I am certain that it would not be the desire of the Secretary of State that flogging should be inflicted by any Allied authority under the provisions of this Measure. On that point also we shall be grateful if we can have an assurance from the Under-Secretary.

6.30 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg

I hope that the House will allow me to speak again, since many points have been raised in the discussion. The Government cannot complain of the way in which this Bill has been received. Generally speaking, there is no question that the House supports the Government in the choice between the two main alternatives that have been discussed. Only one speech has been made against our choice. It is a happy thing that that is so, because the Governments concerned attach great importance to this Bill and to the recognition that it gives of their status and their right to choose the path which they wish to pursue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), for whose speech we are grateful, asked whether General de Gaulle would apply the code of the French Legion to that detail of the French Legion which is on British soil. The same question was asked by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and others. The answer is that the code which is applied to the French Legion in Morocco is never applied to the French Legion in France, and General de Gaulle, in any case, has no intention of applying to the Legion any code different from that which he applies to the whole of his force, which is the code applicable to the French Army on French soil. Hon. Members who feel anxiety may be satisfied upon that point.

I was asked about corporal punishment. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) particularly stressed that point. There is no provision for corporal punishment in any of these codes, and we have an assurance that it will not be applied. On the other hand, when it comes to the death penalty for desertion, there are only two cases in which Polish law differs from ours. I am bound to say I do not understand the position which the hon. Gentleman takes up. He is, I understand, a believer in liberty. He will agree that we are fighting for that principle in this war, and yet he is telling me that the Government should dictate what other Governments are to do to its own subjects in this country in a matter of this kind. Dictation is not liberty. I should be prepared to go and ask these Governments to agree, but to dictate to them would be absolutely foreign to the principle we are pursuing. We should not dream of doing such a thing in regard to our own Dominions, and they know that very well. Why should we adopt a less civil method towards our foreign Allies? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but this is an important point of principle. I have often observed that some of the foremost upholders of liberty mean liberty to enforce their ideas upon other people and not to allow other people to hold their own ideas.

Mr. David Adams (Consett)

That remark seems to me to be unjustified. We are as patriotic as other people.

Sir E. Grigg

I was not referring in particular to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not think that I meant to include him.

Mr. Harvey

My hon. Friend said he was willing to negotiate with the Allied authorities. May we take it that he will press this point upon them?

Sir E. Grigg

Our representatives have not thought this point of sufficient importance, but I will mention the matter to them.

Mr. Lees-Smith

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the death penalty?

Sir E. Grigg

Yes, I am referring to the death penalty for desertion and maiming to avoid service.

Sir Henry Fildes (Dumfries)

Suppose a man changed his mind and wanted to leave. Would that be called desertion?

Sir E. Grigg

Desertion is a military crime in our Army, and it is the same in all armies. With regard to conscription, my right hon. Friend asked whether it was implicit in any way in this Bill. It is not. If compulsion is to be applied to the subjects of foreign nations in this country to join their forces, it must be done under separate legislation to be introduced later in this House.

Mr. Wedgwood

Cannot it be done indirectly by withholding men's passports?

Sir E. Grigg

It certainly cannot be done in that way, and we are not going to adopt that method in this matter. If it is asked why, if our own people are subject to compulsion, other people should not be so, we wish it to be done in no other way than in the way we use for our own people, with the same machinery and the same examinations and exemptions. I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend said about giving the utmost opportunity we could to Germans and Austrians who are loyal to our cause to enter combatant forces on our behalf. There are great difficulties about that, but we recognise that some of them in noncombatant forces actually fought magnificently in France on lines of communication. There are great difficulties in sorting them out, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no lack of sympathy with his point of view.

Mr. Lees-Smith

Will my right hon. Friend deal with the case of the Dutch Government?

Sir E. Grigg

That notice is ultra vires so far as the law of this country is concerned. There is no legislation under which it can be enforced, but we have said to these Governments that if they wish to introduce compulsion on the same lines as we have introduced it, we would make no objection and would be prepared to introduce the necessary legislation. It is probably in anticipation of that that the Dutch Government acted, but there is at present no legal authority in existence which will enable us to give effect to the calling up of foreign subjects.

Mr. Lees-Smith

They may have sent out a notice which, as the Under-Secretary says, has no legal authority, but there are many of their subjects who are being misled and think that authority exists. I presume the attention of that Government will be called to the observations made on their action in this Debate and that until they have a proper Bill passed by this House they have no right to deceive their subjects as to the law of the land.

Sir E. Grigg

That will, of course, be done. I do not want to criticise a Government who are only anxious to get on and wish to enable their people to do what we are doing ourselves and to apply the same princple that we apply to our own people. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) asked, like many others, particularly the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), why no provision has been made for Jews. This Bill deals with Governments that are sovereign Governments, but the Jews have no Government of that kind. There is no Jewish Govern ment or Jewish military code. There is no Jewish military system. Therefore, if the Jews are to play their part they must play it as part of some existing military organisation. This is what I understand they wish to do. I have the utmost sympathy with their desire to play their part in winning the war, and I know how heart and soul they are behind the Allied cause, but they can only do that as units and as parts of some other national force.

Mr. Denman

My real point was that separate Jewish units should be encouraged, other than national forces.

Sir E. Grigg

As far as I know, that is being done in Palestine, and Palestinian units are now being formed.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton was also warm in his commendation of the Bill. I have some sympathy with what he said about bringing the representatives of these Governments into consultation with the representatives of the Dominions. I think that something of that kind, something more regular and spectacular than exists, might come into existence in the course of the war, but it is the sort of thing that must be done soberly and advisedly. This Bill goes a long way as a demonstration of that principle. He also asked whether any new Ally could come in under this Bill. We hope to have reinforcements from many Allies, and any who wish to come under the terms of the Bill can do so.

Mr. Mander

The first Clause says: Where any naval, military or air forces of any foreign Power allied with His Majesty are for the time being present in the United Kingdom or on board any of His Majesty's ships or aircraft, … Does that apply to forces on Colonial territory?

Sir E. Grigg

I believe that all that is exactly the same as in the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill. My hon. Friend's point is covered by the proviso to Clause 1. My hon. Friend also asked whether any new Ally could come under the provisions of this Bill. I can give him that assurance. We hope for the reinforcement of new Allies during the war, and any who wish to come under the terms of the Bill will be able to do so. It is also the case that foreigners can join our forces. Foreigners belonging to allied friendly nations can do so, but we do not think it right to encourage them to do so rather than join the forces of their own Governments. That question is wrapped up with the final point upon which I was asked for information, the systematising of pay and allowances. It would be easy to start competition in this matter. There are soldiers in this country who, if they were able to join the Canadian, Australian or New Zealand Forces, would be delighted to do so in view of the rates of pay. We are trying to get the scales systematised.

Mr. Wedgwood

Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the pay of ordinary private soldiers in these six armies?

Sir E. Grigg

I am afraid that I cannot, but the subject of pay and allowances is under discussion, and the object is to prevent any great disparity. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) made a strong case for absorbing all these foreign fighting elements into our own Army rather than allowing them to form national forces of their own. I do not want to go into the military aspects of that question, and all I would say is that, after all, we are fighting for the freedom of these countries. We recognise their Governments as representative of free peoples, and if those Governments say that this is what they want who are we to deny it to them? Should we not be going against the very principle we are fighting for if we were to say, "No, much as you would like to have your own forces we deny you the right to do so"? We could not reasonably deny to a foreign Government on our soil the right which we have long conceded to the Dominions of the British Commonwealth. It would be a totally unreasonable line to take. Obviously it is their desire which has to guide us in this matter. It is part of the principle for which we are fighting. I think my right hon. Friend will not mind my saying this, that I have often observed a certain Prussian tinge in his idea of freedom, a general tendency to assume that British ideas should be forced on the rest of the world. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the treatment of Jews in the Polish Army and elsewhere. He accused the War Office of ignoring the Jews and of being reactionary. The War Office is not a reactionary body in any way, I can assure him, and the accusations or the insinuations which he makes against the Polish Commander-in-Chief are erroneous —I mean his insinuations about the way men are treated in the Polish Forces.

Mr. Wedgwood

I spoke about Prince Starhemberg. He is in the French Army.

Sir E. Grigg

I was coming later to Prince Starhemberg, but surely the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the treatment of Jews in the Polish army?

Mr. Wedgwood

The treatment of the Jews in the Polish army and in Poland.

Sir E. Grigg

That is what I am dealing with. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) made a speech the spirit of which I gladly acknowledge and, I must say, share entirely. I think what he said was absolutely fair and reasonable, and it would certainly be the spirit of our own approach to the whole of this problem. One of the phrases he used was an interesting phrase which does represent what is happening at the present time. He talked of "atmosphere conditioning the mind." I think that is happening at the present time. We have much reason to know that that method of approach is being followed in quarters where, perhaps, it has not been honoured very closely before. Certainly in regard to the Polish army we have no reason to do anything other than commend most warmly the line which the head of that army has taken. I will read to the House the terms of an order which was issued nearly three weeks ago by General Sikorski, the CommanderinChief of the Polish forces: The success of our arms and the establishment of our future national existence requires the coordination of our efforts for our common aim. In particular, in the Army unity must be firmly established; honest brotherhood of arms must rule and all squabbles be eliminated. My principle is that a Pole who is now fighting for the common cause has thus given sufficient evidence that he is a Pole irrespective of his origin or religion. I strictly forbid to show to soldiers of Jewish faith any unfriendliness through contemptuous remarks or anything humiliating to human dignity. All such offences will be severely punished. This Order is to be read on parade to all soldiers.

Mr. Silverman

Everybody will recognise the extremely reasonable and even generous spirit of that order, but the effect of it is likely to be weakened when it is compared with such publications—I think the right hon. Gentleman will know what I mean—as we have had brought to our attention recently, Polish papers pub lished in this country by people who are ostensibly members of General Sikorski's Government and, presumably, with the money which they have borrowed from us. They do not read at all like that order. I recognise that whereas one is a statement in a newspaper, the other is an order of the Commanderin-Chief, but we ought to be able to control the others too.

Sir E. Grigg

I feel there is much in what the hon. Member has said. I think I have dealt with all the points which have been raised, and I would now ask the House not only to give a Second Reading to this Bill but, in spite of the objections which I recognise to this course, to give us all the remaining stages of the Bill tonight. I do not think that request is unreasonable. It was announced that the Government would be forced to take this course a week ago. The Bill itself has been available for a very long time. It has been through another place, and Amendments could have been prepared. We are engaged in negotiating agreements with these different Sovereign Governments, and we shall not be able to complete them until we have the legal power which this Bill will confer. Actually, those Governments are not in proper command of their own forces until this Bill becomes law. There may at any moment come a crisis in which those forces would be used in the field, and it is desirable that questions of command and everything else should be firmly established. It is for that reason that we ask that all remaining stages of the Bill should be taken now.

6.55 p.m.

Sir H. Fildes

The point I had in mind when I made my objection was the position of the Norwegians whose whaling vessels were captured. The Norwegians were brought to this country. They would like to get home. Suppose a number of them had joined the British Navy but on second thoughts would prefer to get home. In such a case shooting or otherwise executing them would be a harsh measure. We have 1,300 French sailors in one camp. They want to get home instead of staying here, but we have seized their vessels. If they should give allegiance to the British Government and then suddenly get an opportunity to get home, the death pen alty would appear to be rather severe in such a case. But I support the Bill, and if the Government would like to get it through all stages tonight, I should not oppose them.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

cc1390-414
1. CLAUSE 1.—(Law applicable to allied and associated forces.) 9,563 words