CLAUSE 1.—(Law applicable to allied and associated forces.) (Hansard, 21 August 1940)

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I beg to move, in page I, line 13, after "forces," to insert "who are their own nationals."

§ The Chairman
In calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to move this Amendment, which has only just been handed in, I think there is no doubt about its being in Order, but I must reserve my decision on that point.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
The object of this Amendment is to confine the exercise of military discipline to those persons in each of these national forces who are nationals of that nation; that is to say, it excludes from the power of control those people in the French Army who are not Frenchmen, those in the Polish Army who are not Poles, and those in the Belgian Army who are not Belgians. It leaves the power of the commanding officer over those nonnationals a purely directional power; he has no power of punishment. Therefore he will get rid of them, or he will be willing to get rid of them. The point arises in connection with the French Foreign Legion. It consists very largely of men who are not Frenchmen, but who have been either soldiers of fortune wandering about, exiles from foreign countries, and, very largely, of Jews. This being a Foreign Legion, we have a large number of Spaniards and other foreigners in it, practically all of them people who have fought in Spain in the International Brigade—the very best type of soldier. All of them have desired to get out of the Foreign Legion. Some of them got out 1391 by mutiny, some by getting into the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Force, where they are doing useful work. But these men have committed the crime of desertion. That is to say, they cleared out of the Legion when it was in England, and they have been maintained in many cases by friends, or they have been interned by our Government. Quite a number of them, particularly of the anti-Fascist battalion, are Jews and Germans who have been exiled from Germany—not Communists, but people who only went to Spain to fight for the Republican Government.
I want the Committee to realise that if we pass the Bill as it stands, it means that these people who have been guilty of desertion can under this Bill be punished by death—these people whose only crime is the desire to join the British Army, to fight under British officers, to fight at any cost against the Germans. These people are now technically deserters. Therefore they are technically liable to punishment according to the laws of France dealing with desertion. So far as Poland is concerned, we know that desertion is a capital offence. I do not know whether it is in the Foreign Legion. But whatever is the punishment for desertion from the Foreign Legion, we are not now imposing it upon people who voluntarily and freely submit themselves to that form of discipline. We are not saying to these people, "You have the free option of joining the British Army or joining the Foreign Legion." They have had no option in the matter at all. They had to go into the Foreign Legion in order to live. We should be committing a crime if we passed this Bill today and handed these people over to whatever punishment they may be sentenced to without any appeal.
It is worse than that. Under this Bill a person sentenced to imprisonment for desertion passes over to the civil power. In the case of a man sentenced to imprisonment for life, we shall have to keep him at our own expense for the rest of his natural life. Could there be anything more stupid? All I am asking the Under-Secretary to do—surely he will have to do it some time—is to persuade General de Gaulle no longer to compel these people who do not want to be in the Foreign Legion to remain in the Foreign Legion. They are at present 1392 technically members of the Foreign Legion. As long as they are deserters, hiding among friends in England or interned in various camps, they are still technically members of the Foreign Legion and therefore technically liable to all these pains and penalties. All we have to get is General de Gaulle's acceptance of the expulsion of these people from the Foreign Legion so that they can join up elsewhere. I cannot think why it should be refused. But every time I have approched the Secretary of State the reply has always been the same—"We cannot do anything to interfere with the internal arrangements of an Allied Power which is helping us."
That is all very well, but we are paying all the officers and all the men. The whole thing is financed by us. Surely we may stipulate that these people should be allowed to join the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps instead of being kept in prison as members of the French Foreign Legion. I move this Amendment because it would enable the French Foreign Legion to eject these men. The Amendment I move now in Subsection (1) applies to the Poles, but not to the French. The Amendment I propose to move next applies in similar manner to the French. It is on page 2, line 6, after the word "any," to insert "French nationals in the," so that Subsection (2) would read: … to secure the discipline and internal administration of any French nationals in the forces so maintained.… The addition of those words seems to meet the point exactly as far as I am concerned, and also to meet the cause of justice. It is not just that these men who have been forced into the Foreign Legion because they were refugees of the Spanish War, who have been the allies of the cause, should by the passing of this Bill be suddenly put in danger of their lives instead of being given the liberty of joining the British Army and fighting for the cause.

§ The Chairman
Before I put the Question I should like a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his second Amendment. I take it that he was moving the two Amendments more or less at once, but I was not intending to call the second Amendment, because it seems to me to make nonsense. If he will read a little further, he will see that 1393 apparently the effect of this Amendment would be to give authority to all these other Powers besides the French to deal with French nationals and French nationals only. Surely that cannot be his intention.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
That is the inconvenience of not having the Bill in print and being able to work out the Amendments. I think, Sir Dennis, you are mistaken. With great deference, I differ from you. Subsection (2) appears to apply to any foreign authority, but the only foreign authority that it applies to at present is the French. It is quite true that if we got the Abyssinians in on similar lines, it would apply to them, but at present Subsection (1) applies to the five Governments here and Subsection (2) to the one which is not a government, but a foreign authority.

§ The Chairman
I will put the first Amendment at any rate.

§ Mr. Mander
Would the Minister be good enough to deal with a point which I think he intended to mention but in fact did not, and that is the position of Prince Starhemberg? I understand that this gentleman is actually serving in General de Gaulle's army at the present time. How is it that he, undoubtedly a man of great courage, with his political record, is able so easily to find service in one of the Allied armies whereas large numbers of humble people, strongly antiNazi, who were driven out of Austria, have discovered that all we can do for them is to throw them into internment camps? Many of these people would be only too delighted to serve this country or their own country, along with Prince Starhemberg in the role which he is following at present. I do urge that no preference should be shown in these Allied armies to people of rank or position, and that service in the armies should be open to persons of the right character and courage, however obscure they may be, equally with the bestknown people.

Miss Rathbone
I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) intended to bring forward this Amendment, but I would like to speak on it as it affects the members of the French 1394 Foreign Legion. There may be analogous cases in other forces. I am strongly in favour of the case which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, and I know a good deal about the circumstances in which, for example, Spaniards and members of the International Brigade were recruited for the French Foreign Legion. It was done under the most extraordinary duress. When they came back from Spain, whether they were Spaniards or members of the International Brigade, they were put into concentration camps, where they were under military guard in drastic conditions. This was particularly the case with members of the International Brigade who were not Spaniards—who themselves were treated harshly enough—and the discipline was severer than in an English convict prison. They were surrounded by electrified barbed wire. They could not go out and they had no furniture of any kind.
It was under these conditions that many of these men consented to enlist in the French Foreign Legion; so that one cannot say that they are like ordinary conscripts. It cannot be right to say that men who entered the Foreign Legion in those circumstances—we are told that they fought very bravely at Narvik—should be subject to the death penalty because they do not wish to remain in the Legion. On this point, I do not wholly agree with the mover of the Amendment. I do not want the heads of the French Foreign Legion or of analogous bodies to be compelled or strongly induced to turn out foreigners. In many cases the very best thing that could happen would be that the foreigners should enlist voluntarily in the Legion, especially the International Brigaders. I suggest that the Amendment should take a slightly different form and provide that the powers should refer only to nationals, of other States, if the nationals of other States join the Force concerned after the passage of the Bill. That would mean that the International Brigaders or Spaniards would be exempt from the penalties for desertion, and that there would be an inducement to turn them out. These men would have to be induced voluntarily to rejoin, and they would then be subject to the Clauses of the Bill. Is that not a reasonable arrangement? They would then be in the same position as any other foreigners and subject to the same discipline. It is not fair 1395 to compel people who have escaped from a life that is worse than death to join a foreign Force, and then shoot them because they attempt to escape from it. Now they have come to a free country, and they do not want to remain in the Foreign Legion. If they voluntarily rejoin they should, of course, be compelled to stay in afterwards, and be subject to all the penalties. Is that point clear? Will my right hon. and learned Friend think it over and see whether something can be done?

§ The Attorney-General
There are two main points to be dealt with. One is the point of general principle embodied in the Amendment, and the other concerns details which the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have in mind. I will say a word first upon the general principle. It is interesting that this Amendment should have come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who is always pressing my hon. Friend to give greater facilities to friendly aliens, and, indeed, friendly enemy aliens, to enlist in our Forces. We have the right of taking aliens into our Forces and of subjecting them to our discipline, but that is a right which, by this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman denies to our Allies, who have their Forces in this country and who are anxious to help us. I do not think it would be practical politics or fair, or indeed possible, to insert into the Bill a restriction—for that is what it is—upon foreign Governments allied to us, whose Forces are here, in order to preclude them from exercising any discipline over those who are lawfully in their Forces. On the question of principle, therefore, I do not think the Committee can possibly accept the Amendment. The principle of the Bill of allowing the Forces of a foreign Government to be under their own discipline is a principle recognised by international law and one which the British Expeditionary Force enjoyed to the full in France during the last war.
Now let us turn to the individual matters which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have in mind. It is pointed out that men were originally driven to join the Foreign Legion by the coercion of circumstances; let me put it that way. They had no option, and it 1396 was, in effect, duress which led them to join the Legion. Let us assume that. I suppose that being in the French Foreign Legion, those men who came to this country with French troops, or with our own troops when they were evacuated, had never undertaken to serve in General de Gaulle's Force. Then nothing in this Bill can make them liable for desertion. The only powers that this Bill will confer on General de Gaulle will be powers over persons who have voluntarily joined his Force.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Oh, nonsense.

§ The Attorney-General
Well, I am telling the right hon. Gentleman what the Bill means. It is perfectly simple. It is only in the case of those French soldiers who have on a voluntary basis—

§ Mr. Wedgwood
May I explain to the Committee that the option given to these men was to return to France or stop in the Legion? You cannot call that voluntarily opting for the Legion.

§ The Attorney-General
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke, I thought, of the circumstances in which they originally joined the Legion at the time of the Spanish war. Now here, as I understand, they have undertaken to serve in General de Gaulle's force. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was unfair to say to them, "Will you join General de Gaulle's force or be repatriated?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
They were not Frenchmen. They were given the option of going back to France, which meant going back to be shot, or being in General de Gaulle's force.

§ The Attorney-General
I understand that, these men having exercised the option to join General de Gaulle's force, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that was not a fair option, and they have deserted. I hope I have satisfied the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is one which we could not possibly accept —excluding altogether the powers conferred by this Bill over persons who may be lawfully in these armies, but are not nationals of the country. The men with whom the right hon. Gentleman is concerned obviously are a very special case. I am only taking the facts as the right hon. Gentleman states them; there may be room for differences of opinion with 1397 regard to the facts. But we are concerned with this Bill, and I do not see how this Bill can have retrospective effect enabling people to be punished for what they have done in the past. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government ought to take steps to enable these men to be enlisted in our Forces, instead of in General de Gaulle's. I am not saying whether he is right or wrong. He can press his point on the Government, but it really does not form any foundation for amending this Bill or introducing into it words which it would be quite wrong to introduce.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I am afraid this is the only opportunity we have of securing justice for these men. I hoped when the right hon. and learned Gentleman got up he was going to say that these men in the International Brigade, who are now in prison because they refused to go to General de Gaulle and also refused to go back to France, would be set free—free from General de Gaulle's control. They can never be of any service to General de Gaulle. They never opted for him; all they did was to refuse to opt to go back to Pétain's France, and when the only alternative open to them was the Legion they preferred to desert. They are now in StokeonTrent, dozens of them, being looked after by my supporters. They have never been proceeded against for desertion yet, and I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that they will not be proceeded against for desertion. Am I right?

§ The Attorney-General
I cannot add to what I said. I do not know the exact facts, but I said I did not see how under this Bill people can be proceeded against in respect of acts committed before the Bill was passed.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
That may be some consolation to those who have deserted from the Legion, but it does not affect the hundreds who are now interned, although their offence was committed before this Bill is passed. They have been interned by us indefinitely and their release depends entirely upon General de Gaulle himself, who says that he is no longer interested in them and has refused. He is keeping a whip hand over these people. I am certain that we, and particularly the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench, owe some 1398 thing to these men in the International Brigade who fought for us and who, after being confined in the hell on earth of a camp in France, were driven into enlisting in the French Foreign Legion, and have been hiding in France and in Norway. They are now rotting in prison simply because the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench cannot get up and say, "I will speak to General de Gaulle and get him to release them."

§ Mr. Wilfrid Roberts (Cumberland, North)
My information about the men in this country who were in the French force in Norway is rather different from the right hon. Gentleman's. There are many of them who conducted themselves very well at Narvik and who are now in the British Pioneer Corps and, I believe, doing very well. But this whole question does seem to me to point to a very big gap which exists in this Bill at the present time. It may be that the Amendment does not meet the case. There are other nationalities which do not fit in well to any of the existing organised armies—armies organised under Governments recognised in this country—and they can join the British Army. The particular group that I know have done so, but that is not altogether satisfactory, because what they are expected to join is the Pioneer Corps, which until recently has not been armed and is still regarded as something rather like the Labour Corps of the last war. I do not want to accentuate that, because I know it is the desire of those who organised the force that they should not be considered as being like the Labour Corps of the last war. But they are not armed, even now, as fully as many of our own troops, and there is a slight slur on those who join this Corps. [Interruption.] You would not expect many Americans who want to fight for democracy and freedom in Europe to flock from America to join this Corps. It seems to me that the difficulty about the Spaniards who have been in the French Foreign Legion reveals a gap in this Bill, which I hope the Government will find administrative or other means of filling up. Perhaps they could have an organisation which Americans or any other nationals could join, to enable them to fight for the causes which they hold as dear as we do. If some corps other than the Pioneer Corps is provided, or if the status of the Pioneer Corps is raised, we 1399 can find many foreigners who will willingly join our cause.

§ Sir E. Grigg
I think the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) when he talks about a gap, misunderstands the purpose of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to give assistance to sovereign Governments already in this territory. It has nothing to do with action which we choose to take in regard to our own Forces. If we wanted to form a Foreign Legion we should come to the House to obtain the necessary powers. In order to extend our jurisdiction over foreign nationals in this area we should require some legislation, but it would be different legislation from this. I agree that there are in this country some thousands of more or less unattached foreigners who are most anxious to serve our cause, and we in the War Office are anxious to have their services, particularly in the case of those who have had some training already. The reason we are not pressing to obtain those services at the present moment is the very good reason, which I think I have mentioned in this House before, that we want to equip our own men first. We are having some difficulty in equipping our own Army. It is no good enlisting foreigners if it means denying equipment to the Home Guard.

§ Mr. Roberts
Might we have a definite understanding that when sufficient equipment is available these foreigners who wish to serve will be provided with an organisation?

§ Sir E. Grigg
Of course, I am not in a position to give that undertaking on behalf of the Government, but I can say that that will be very sympathetically considered. I come to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Foreign Legion, which was, I understand, that the option given to these men was not a real option. I do not know what the facts are.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I can give you the facts.

§ Sir E. Grigg
The right hon. Gentleman always knows the facts, but I am not prepared to accept his statements.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
That is not fair. I gave the hon. Gentleman the facts two 1400 months ago. He had them all in writing.

§ Sir E. Grigg
Yes, but inquiries showed that many of the statements were not facts.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
And you refused to show me the report.

§ Sir E. Grigg
The facts are much less simple than may be realised. When this Bill is passed the conditions under which soldiers serve in General de Gaulle's forces will have to be agreed between the British Government and General de Gaulle. We are certainly prepared to go most carefully into the question of the conditions which are to be enforced under this Bill. I have no hesitation in saying that General de Gaulle himself is most anxious that these conditions should be reasonable. I have found nothing in his attitude or his conduct to justify the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman levelled against him. The spirit in which he approaches these things is very much our spirit. I want to say something about Prince Stahremberg. I apologise for not saying anything about the case before. I am not in a position to make any statement upon the membership of a force that has no legal status. It can be joined like any other club, since this is a free country. But when these forces have some legal status, then will he the moment to raise questions of this kind. I do not make any statement as to the facts, for I do not know what they are.

Miss Rathbone
I want to address my questions, if I may, to the Attorney-General. I want to make sure what the exact legal position will be under the Bill. Is it that if an International Brigader or a Spaniard has come to this country and is not willing to be repatriated or to join General de Gaulle's forces, and is now in prison, he does not come under this Bill, and cannot be claimed by General de Gaulle and penalised if General de Gaulle wants him to be? I think that is clear. But suppose men have come over who belong to the Foreign Legion, and they have already joined General de Gaulle, do they come under the provisions of this Bill as soon as it is law?

§ Sir E. Grigg
I have just explained that point. All these things are to be 1401 settled by agreement when the Bill is passed. We have to agree with General dc Gaulle.

Miss Rathbone
Then this Bill does not apply automatically to everybody who is at present a member of General de Gaulle's forces?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
This is the first time in the whole of this Debate that we have heard that the Bill depends entirely upon agreement between the Secretary of State and the heads of the different forces. It is only in the case of General de Gaulle's forces that a subsequent arrangement can be made between you and them.

§ Sir E. Grigg
Under Subsection (2).

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I must deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr W. Roberts). The point about the Spanish is that when they got to the Employment Exchange they mutinied and refused to go. They were allowed to join the Pioneer Corps. I agree with the hon. Member that it would have been much better if they had joined the Regular Army. Once they were in the Pioneer Corps they were employed in giving certain instruction to our Home Guard. They were all right. They that mutinied were all right. It is the unfortunate ones that deserted. It is those people who are now in gaol and have deserted that I am anxious to safeguard from this laconic law under which the death penalty can be imposed for desertion, and indeed, whatever penalty the right hon. Gentleman and General de Gaulle can arrange between them. We ought to take every opportunity to stop that sort of thing from happening in England. Those men who fought in Spain and who have fought all over the world, deserve our protection. If we allow this Amendment to go through, we shall be handing them over without a word of hope from the hon. Gentleman that he will save them when it comes to the point of bargaining with General de Gaulle as to what the code of military law is to be. We shall be doing that, if we allow the hon. Gentleman to carry this Bill without telling us first that he will use his influence with General de Gaulle to save these men, not to vary the punishment from death to penal servitude, but to save them from being 1402 punished at all, when they took the only course open to them of getting their freedom from the Foreign Legion. It is monstrous to deal more deadly with people who merely deserted than you would deal with people who mutinied. The Spaniards who mutinied are all right, but those unfortunate Germans, Italians, and Rumanians will be left in the lurch if we do not support them and if we do not get some promise from the hon. Gentleman.

§ Sir E. Grigg
The right hon. Gentleman has misread the situation as it exists. It is almost impossible to follow him in the variety of details that he has given. We are not legislating for some oppressive action. Let me explain the facts. In regard to what he called deserters from the Foreign Legion, he talks of their being imprisoned. These men have simply been interned because no one knows what else to do with them at the moment. They have not been interned at the instance of General de Gaulle, and I really must protest against what is being said against General de Gaulle. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to speak in that way.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I have a letter.

§ Sir E. Grigg
General de Gaulle is entitled to courteous treatment in this House. He has been accused of a line of action which would certainly be reprehensible if he had taken it. What is done concerning socalled deserters is a matter for decision by the British Government. It is really much more our responsibility.

§ Mr. John Morgan (Doncaster)
May I ask a straight question? Are these men, as far as we are led to understand, held at the discretion of the British Government and not of General de Gaulle?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I have a letter in my pocket, and I will supply it to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments. It is from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (BrigadierGeneral Spears), who is liaison officer for General de Gaulle, saying that he is very sorry that General de Gaulle refused to release this man who was interned and, therefore, the Secretary of State could not allow him to join the Military Pioneer Corps. The hon. Gentleman told me that I am lying.

§ Mr. J. Morgan
Is that from the Government?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
No, from the liaison officer.

§ Mr. Harvey
I beg to move, in page line 16, at the end, to insert: Provided that nothing in this Act shall confer on such courts the power to pass sentence of death, except for offences for which a sentence of death could be passed upon a British subject. I want to raise a question of very great importance that came up on the Second Reading, and I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to go further than he felt able to do at that point. I wish to get an Amendment into the framework of this Bill which will provide against the extension of the death penalty in those cases where it is not already legalised under British law. I also propose to move a similar addition to Subsection (2), if it is approved by the Committee. The Under-Secretary has said that it was not considered advisable to approach the Government of a foreign Power and ask that they should modify in any way their own laws and regulations in deference to British laws. On the other hand, we are here asked to modify British law for the benefit of a foreign Power. It is the British law that no Pole, or whoever he may be, can be executed ill this country except in accordance with the law of this land. We are now going to pass a Bill which will allow a Pole and certain other nationals to be executed for crimes which are not recognised as involving the capital offence by the law of this country. We are making a great alteration in the law of this country in deference to the wishes of a foreign Power, and it is not too much to ask the Under-Secretary of State, when he introduces a Bill of this kind, to give an assurance that these foreign Governments, friendly and Allied Governments, with whom we have the utmost sympathy, should not use the special powers entrusted to them in a way that is contrary to the practice of British law. That is a very reasonable promise to give. If we could without difficulty, and without any sense of loss of dignity on the part of the Power concerned, get an assurance of that kind from the Governments of the Allied Powers which are affected by this 1404 Bill, it would make the greatest difference. Better than that would be that we should have in the framework of the Bill itself a provision that the British law should not be varied in this very important respect. We all hope that the occasion for it may never arise, but we should safeguard principles that are of the greatest import, not only to British subjects, but to those who have the privilege of living in this country.

§ The Attorney-General
In the history of military codes different countries have no doubt found at different periods the necessity for grave or less grave penalties. There is a recent example in our own history. Until 1930 the offence of desertion or cowardice in the face of the enemy was punishable with death. In that year that was altered, and penal servitude for life was substituted. It is not, therefore, surprising that among all the different codes of ourselves and our Allies there are varieties of penalties, and in particular there are cases under foreign codes under which the death penalty can be inflicted and in which, under our code, it could not be inflicted. We like to think, perhaps rightly, that this is a matter on which we lead the world, but I think it would be wrong to seek in this Bill to dictate to foreign Governments what the penalties should be which they require for the discipline of their forces. Clearly, it would be right for us to say, "You shall not inflict on our soil any barbarous or uncivilised form of penalty or any penalty which we ourselves regard as barbarous or uncivilised." But when one remembers that desertion or cowardice in the face of the enemy was punishable by death under our own code as recently as 1930, and that we thought it necessary all through the last war to have that potential penalty, what right have we to say to other countries, because in the interval we have thought we can dispense with it, "You are to have the same code in this matter, in spite of the differences of outlook which exist between nations, as we have in 1940, which differs from the code we had in 1930 and may differ from our code of 1950"?
The hon. Gentleman said that in this Bill we were modifying the English law for the benefit of foreign Governments, but that is not the way a foreign Government looks at it, and not the way we look at it when we have our Forces in 1405 foreign territory and ask for, and always get, complete permission to apply our own military code. It is a recognised principle of international law, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at Oppenheim's 5th edition of "International Law," chapter 4, dealing with armed forces on foreign territory, he will find that it says: Whenever armed forces are on foreign territory in the service of their home State they are considered exterritorial and remain therefore under its jurisdiction. A crime committed on foreign territory by a member of these forces cannot be punished by the local civil or military authorities but only by the commanding officer of the forces or by other authorities of their home State.

§ Mr. Harvey
But that is surely quite contrary to the provisions of this Bill, which provide that a man can be punished by a civil authority?

§ The Attorney-General
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. The passage from which I was quoting goes on to point out: This rule, however, applies only in case the crime is committed either within the place where the force is stationed, or in some place where the criminal was on duty. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that these foreign Governments might say, "You do not in this Bill go as far as international law," but in fact, although under Clause 2 we do claim complete jurisdiction over all offences, in practice it is not, of course, claimed where an offence is committed within the lines and the life or property of one of our own subjects is not involved. It may be right to say that the Bill does not, under international law, go as far as they might say it ought to go, but I do not think that it is right to look at this thing as a concession. International law is not law which applies to our courts, except where laid down by them or by legislation, but in our dealings with nations we base ourselves on international law and expect others to do so. Under the powers of this Bill we are not so much conferring a benefit as fulfilling an obligation under the international law.

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)
Are the commanders who are in control of these different foreign soldiers under the jurisdiction of British authorities, or will they act "on their own"?

§ The Attorney-General
As my hon. Friend explained in introducing the Measure, the purpose of this Bill is to enable their own military code to be 1406 enforced by the forces of the various foreign Governments.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
You are asking us to empower these individuals to forgo restrictions that we have put on our own men. Are these foreign generals under the jurisdiction of British generals?

§ The Attorney-General
I think one has to distinguish between two things. One is strategy and the general conduct of the war, and the other is what is described in the Bill as internal administration and discipline. For the purpose of the enforcement of discipline and internal administration, these forces are "on their own." They can apply their own code, have their own courts and inflict their own penalties, just as our Expeditionary Force in France could when strategically it was under a French commander. For these reasons, while appreciating that hon. Members feel very strongly about the death penalty, it would he wrong and contrary to the recognised principles of comity between nations, on which this Bill is based, if we sought to dictate to these foreign countries that in the matter of the death penalty they must follow the precise provisions of our code in this year 1940.

§ Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, SouthWest)
I think my hon. Friend has made a very substantial point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has very fairly put the position under international law, and in normal circumstances he would be fundamentally right and he would be very difficult to answer. Obviously, when our Armies are fighting on the Continent alongside each other, the French army is governed by French law and the English by English law. But we are faced with very peculiar circumstances. The fact that we have had to introduce a Bill of this character shows how peculiar the circumstances are. They are not normal, and there are very few precedents in history for similar circumstances. Countries find their territory overrun, and we are glad to see them reforming their armies in our country. I cannot imagine an incident arising where it would be necessary in this country for one of these foreign armies organised and raised in our own country to have to exercise the death penalty. It would be entirely unsatisfactory to us, and against the spirit of 1407 this country, if the death penalty was carried out in a kind of case where it would not be carried out under our law. The point might be considered perhaps in another place. I know that the time factor is an important one, but it is a very real point, which ought to be faced. I have no doubt that by negotiation and agreement probably the armies concerned would accept in principle that, while they are in this country, they should not carry out the death penalty in cases where it would not be carried out in our Army under our law.

§ Sir Joseph Nall (Manchester, Hulme)
I suggest that we are in danger of getting in a very difficult position over the Bill, because, while the Attorney-General's reply is a perfectly understandable one, it is based on a hypothetical situation which in fact does not exist. The foreign governments that he talked about are not de facto Governments on any territory of their own. They are societies or assemblies of friendly foreigners temporarily domiciled in this country. They are in no way the properly constituted Government of the country which they represent. They are no longer amenable to the Constitution which appointed them, and, as time goes on, circumstances may arise within some of these units in which the authority of the present régime may be disputed. On what Constitution can they fall back to maintain their authority? It seems to me an indefensible position. The analogy between our Army in a foreign country and these regiments in this country is in no way convincing. The commanders of the British Army in a foreign country are at least amenable to the properly constituted British Government. The commanders of these foreign forces in this country are not amenable to the properly constituted Governments of the countries from which they come.

§ Sir E. Grigg
My hon. Friend is referring to sovereign Governments in a way which is disparaging. They are properly constituted Governments, and they have been recognised as such. In that case, from the point of view of this House they are properly constituted Governments.

§ Sir J. Nall
I do not wish to be disparaging. We welcome them here, and we are glad that they have been able to 1408 come here, but in fact they are no longer amenable to the Constitution which appointed them, and certainly not all of them are even a quorum of the Government which existed at the time their countries were overrun. The extreme penalties which they may be allowed to inflict should in some way either be correlated to the law of this country or be subject to some appeal while the contingents are here.

Mr. David Adams
I support the plea that further consideration should be given to this very vital matter. The Amendments which have been submitted and the manner in which they have been discussed indicate the very great disability under which the Committee is placed in having Amendments submitted viva voce instead of being on the Paper. I feel that we are displaying in this matter an overweening consideration for the small combatant armies which are domiciled in this country at the country's charge. We are asked to go outside our own law to oblige a relatively small section of the Fighting Forces, and for this small section, who will be virtually under the control and command of British leaders in the Forces, we are asked to make this great departure from the law of the land. The very fact that for 10 years the abolition of the death penalty in this connection has remained unchallenged in this country shows that the change brought about is regarded as having been fitting and proper. Surely, we have here an opportunity for extending to these small combatant armies a more humane outlook with regard to the treatment of the units of which they are composed. It is revolting to the mind of Britain that the death penalty should be inflicted for what might be almost obligatory desertion in certain circumstances, and inflicted with the consent of this House. That is the situation. We are asked to confer upon the leaders of these small combatant armies the power to inflict the death penalty in Great Britain, a penalty which we abrogated 10 years ago. I hope the Government will see their way to meet the views—it may be the too mild views—of persons like those who have moved the Amendment, and introduce into the code of the foreign armies serving on our soil a more humane outlook and one more in harmony with what we believe to he the spirit of the time in which we live.

§ Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)
I feel that in handing over to the representatives of foreign Governments in this country the power to inflict the death penalty in cases where British law does not permit it, we should be doing something about which a very responsible body of public opinion outside the Committee would be very concerned. I can conceive also that if in practice it were necessary for this death penalty to be exercised in cases in which public opinion would not approve of such acts, public opinion would be very considerably shocked. Account ought to be taken of that point of view. The Attorney-General has suggested that we have no right to say to foreign Governments that they shall not inflict the death penalty for desertion because up to 10 years ago we imposed a similar penalty. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman there was a time when the law of this country allowed slavery, but once slavery had been abolished, we no longer allowed it to exist in this country or to be exercised by any other Power. As we have advanced to the point of view that the death penalty should not be inflicted in certain conditions, we ought to hesitate before allowing any other Power to exercise it with the authority of the House. Therefore, I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter, because I feel that a considerable body of public opinion would be very disturbed if we handed over this power to other Governments to exercise in conditions in which public opinion in this country is not prepared that it should be exercised.

§ Sir Walter Smiles (Blackburn)
I want to speak of what I have myself seen. Can anybody presume to say that we Br fishers understand foreigners better than do the foreigners themselves? Can we undertake to legislate for Dutchmen, Spaniards, or Frenchmen? The laws and regulations of these people have been passed by their own Parliaments. Let me tell the Committee of what I saw in Russia at the time of the Revolution. Before Kerensky came into power, the Russian army fought well day after day, and showed very great courage in face of the enemy. When Kerensky came into power, the death penalty was abolished. What happened then? We saw Russian soldiers bolt as hard as they 1410 could from the enemy, even a mile from the front line. I do not say that was entirely the result of the abolition of the death penalty, but they had then a feeling of no confidence in their own established Government. While we have these forces who are to fight in something like a foreign legion for us, at any rate let us respect the laws made by their own Parliaments when they existed.

§ Sir E. Grigg
I am sure the Committee will recognise that in this matter the spokesmen of the Government are in a very delicate position. We are responsible for our relations with certain sovereign Governments at present domiciled in this country. It is in accordance with our principles to show them the greatest consideration and respect, and all the more so, according to our code, because they are at this time in distress and to some extent dependent upon our good offices for their very life. That is a reason, not for disregarding them, but for giving them still higher respect. I am sure the Committee will agree with this. Therefore, it would be very wrong to go to these Governments and in any way try to impose our point of view upon them; but I have listened with interest and with a considerable measure of sympathy to what has been said in the course of this discussion, and I think I can undertake to see that what is obviously widely and strongly felt in the Committee is conveyed to the Governments concerned.
There is one other thing I want to say. Hon. Members are apt to discuss these things as if there were a real danger in all cases of this extreme penalty being imposed. Of course, that is never so. I think it may be said that in military practice the extreme penalty is very seldom imposed, even where it exists, unless necessity confronts the commander in the face of the enemy. When conditions ire otherwise, these sentences are always very greatly modified. Therefore, we are really discussing a thing which is not a reality, because whatever may be the law which we sanction, I am quite certain that no death penalty would ever be inflicted in this country. Nevertheless, the principle is important. I recognise the feeling which has been expressed in the Cornmittee, I have sympathy with it, and I will see that that feeling is not ignored.

§ Sir J. Nall
With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), may I say that if it is merely intended that these forces should continue to apply among themselves the law of their own country as it existed at the time when they were overrun, I should have no objection, but what I should object to would be the enactment of some new law.

§ Mr. Barr (Coatbridge)
I am sure the Committee is grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for the statement he has just made and I am glad that he recognises, as we all ought to recognise, the great importance of this subject. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) said we should not seek to impose our own opinion on the Dutch and others; but we are not seeking to inflict on them what we think they should do on their own soil. The fact that they are on our own soil raises entirely new considerations. I wish to emphasise the importance of this whole subject. I remember what happened during the last war when I had to deal with several of these cases. As the Joint Under-Secretary said, the penalty was not very often inflicted. The death penalty could be inflicted in the case of a man sleeping at his post, or refusing to go over the top with the rest of the force, or for holding back. I dealt with a certain number of these cases and intervened with success. I think it was the sister of Earl Balfour, Lady Frances Balfour, who interested herself very much in this subject, and the death penalty was remitted frequently although sometimes it was carried out.
A strong feeling arose, and it was expressed in this House, and not least among men who had been serving in the Forces, against this penalty being carried out. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) put forward a Motion year after year, and year after year I took part, as did many others, in the discussions. We were revolted that our own people and our own serving men who had volunteered should be condemned to death because of some mental or physical weakness. We fought against it year after year and I remember the night on which the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Minister of Information, rose from his seat and supported us with some seven or eight Conservatives in the Lobby.

§ The Chairman
I hope that the hon. Member will not develop this into a general discussion on the death penalty, but will confine himself more to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Barr
I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis. I only wish to emphasise the importance of this question, and to point out that it would be revolting to very many. I do not wish to make distinctions between parties, but I believe it will be revolting to general opinion in this country if the Dutch, or any other of those nations and organisations who have been named, inflict this penalty on our soil. I desire to say no more than that. The Committee will welcome the assurance of the Minister that he will make representations to those concerned. In the circumstances I believe it is the utmost we can expect.

§ Mr. Woods (Finsbury)
I should like to have a further assurance from the Minister in regard to the statement he has made. Some of us would wish for a rather stronger assurance than he has given. It is true, as the Attorney-General said, that these Governments are our guests, and that it is up to us to extend the utmost hospitality in applying international law. But in regard to the Czech National Committee, the situation is not quite the same. We know that a number of Czech soldiers are in this country who at great peril to themselves and at their own expense, found asylum here in the hope of continuing the struggle against Nazi domination, not only for their own country but for Europe and the world. Among a certain number of these soldiers there are misgivings in regard to the constitution of their National Committee. They are prepared to serve in the British Army and are being denied the right to do so. They are under restraint of some kind; they are, technically, in the Czech Army, and under the supervision of British civil authorities. If this Bill goes through as it stands, we may be endangering the lives of some of these men if they insist on their desire to fight against Nazi Germany.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that if the Amendment is withdrawn, it will not be possible to bring compulsion on those men to accept the discipline of the Czech military authorities. We may owe something to the com 1413 mittees and governments in this country, but we also owe something to the individuals who, relying on British virtue and integrity, have come here to place themselves at the disposal of the British Army to carry on the fight. There would be considerable feeling of indignation in this country if any legislation passed by this House made it possible for these men to be compelled to submit to discipline and possibly shot, merely because they are not satisfied that the Czech National Committee is 100 per cent. antiFascist, and in line with popular feeling in this country, on freedom and democracy for the people of their own country and Europe.

§ Mr. Viant (Willesden, West)
The Committee will appreciate the difficulty which confronts the Minister and his willingness to give certain assurances. I am not at all sure however that the Committee would be wise to allow the Bill to go through as it is, in spite of the willingness of the Minister to give those assurances. Should the Minister fail to persuade our Allies of the need for their acceptance of these conditions, we should be landed in the position that they would be able to impose these penalties. I want the Committee to appreciate what effect it will have on public opinion if we are willing to allow the Bill to go through in those circumstances. Without the acceptance of this Amendment we are going back on a decision made by this House after strenuous fights. I remember the night when we sat late for the purpose of getting such conditions as those demanded here inserted in our own military law. We should not be prepared to give over, too readily, conditions which are already embodied in our own military law.
We welcome the aid and support of those who have come to this country for the purpose of raising agents to wage war on the enemy, but there is another side of the picture. Are we willing to make all the concessions that are to be asked for in this regard? Are we not to be considered in this respect? As they are here and enjoying our hospitality, are we not entitled to ask that they should be prepared to fall into line with the laws of this land? I do not think we are asking too much in that regard. We are entitled to ask for it. The plea might be made that it is a question of urgency, but the 1414 Government need not adjourn the House for a fortnight. There is a vital principle in this Bill which is wrong from our point of view, and the Committee should stand by the Amendment. If it does not, I anticipate that, should anything in the nature of capital punishment be carried out in this country, public opinion would be enraged. I see no reason why the Minister should not accept the Amendment and I hope that the Committee will stand by it as a matter of principle.

§ Mr. Harvey
It is evident that the Joint Under-Secretary appreciates the feeling of the Committee. He has spoken of his intention to put seriously before the authorities concerned the views that have been expressed this evening. I feel sure from what he said that, without in any way hurting their feelings or taking any steps which would appear to them to be putting undue pressure on them, he will succeed in getting them to meet the point of view that has been put so strongly this evening. In view of that and of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.