Lords Sitting of 28 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.

AIR MINISTRY (HESTON AND KENLEY AERODROMES EXTENSION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill read.
11.5 a.m.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words about the Bill as I refrained from explaining its purpose on Second Reading, because a Petition had been presented against it. That Petition has now been satisfactorily disposed of. The Bill is intended to make provision for the extension of the civil airport at Heston and the Royal Air Force Aerodrome at Hendon. These are required on account of the increased runway needed by new types of machines.
There are eleven clauses and two Schedules in the Bill. The first Clause enables the land known in the Bill as Heston land to be compulsorily acquired at any time up to 1st October, 1942. Clause 2 incorporates the Lands Clauses Act subject to the provisions of the Bill itself and in particular to the specific modifications which are found within this Clause. Clause 3 provides that no compensation shall be paid in respect of improvements or alterations made in property acquired after 18th April, 1939, which, in the opinion of the Tribunal to whom the disputed compensation will be referred was not reasonably necessary. Clause 5 is inserted for the protection of
644
the Rector of Cranford. Clause 6 gives the necessary sanction of Parliament to the Agreement between the Secretary of State and the City Corporation as to the stopping up of certain roads, a description of which is found in the First Schedule to the Bill. Clause 8 exonerates the Secretary of State for Air from the payment of Land Tax. I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
11.8 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I do not think it is really necessary for very much to be said. Your Lordships are all well aware why it is unfortunately necessary to put this Bill before you, and I think your Lordships are also well aware of the main purpose of the Bill and what the Bill actually contains. To state quite briefly the reason why it is necessary to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading and to take the Bill through all its stages to-day, there is at the present moment afoot in this country a special plan to force a certain point of view with regard to Irish affairs upon His Majesty's Government. This plan has been prepared with the thoroughness of any military general staff. Indeed, as your Lordships know, we have been fortunate enough to obtain at least one edition of that plan. In that plan are laid down provisions for attack on all the public services, on our munition factories, on aerodromes. But it does not limit itself only to attacks on public property; as your Lordships are unfortunately aware, it threatens life also. Up to date there have been something like 130 outrages. Apart from many millions of pounds worth of damage, already two people have been killed and seventy-three more or less seriously wounded.

645
It is bad enough that these attacks should be carried on at the present time, but I do not think we need very much imagination to realise what they might mean in the event of the outbreak of war. These attacks are cowardly and purposeless. They are cowardly because no regard has been had to life, particularly lately. Completely harmless people with no knowledge whatsoever of the issues at stake may be walking along a street or into a tube station and be blown out of existence the next moment. They are purposeless because surely no sane man—if these people be sane—can imagine for a moment that the attitude of this country and His Majesty's Government is going to be influenced one iota by behaviour of this character.
One of the most impressive things about this country and the workings of democracy is that suddenly, without any propaganda whatsoever, apparently without any particular lead from the top, the country as a whole from one end to the other comes to a conclusion. The country to-day has come to the conclusion that these things must stop and that not a soul is safe until they have been stopped. I do not think any of your Lordships can have failed to be impressed by the debates in another place. I think that certainly we, from this side of the House, would desire to add our tribute to that of the Home Secretary to both Oppositions for the asistance they have given in another place. There is no doubt that many of the principles contained in this Bill have caused them considerable fear and discomfort, and yet, while their attitude has at moments been critical, their criticisms have always been helpful. I hope your Lordships will feel that my right honourable friend in another place did his best to meet, and that the Amendments put down in my name for the Committee stage here are also a genuine attempt to meet those difficulties.
I can state the main outlines of the Bill very briefly. Clause 1 lays down the main principles and functions of the Bill. Subsection (2) of that clause deals with the power of expulsion, subsection (3) with the power of enforcing registration, and subsection (4) with the power of prohibiting the entry of certain people into this country. Those people to whom it is applied are defined in the Bill and are slightly further defined in the Amendments which I shall later move. Clause 3 deals
646
with the sanctions for enforcing the orders of expulsion, registration and prohibition. In Clause 4 we take the right to detain on suspicion—all these things, of course, being done without any trial. We take the right, when we have detained or arrested these persons, to take full record of them, to measure and photograph them and to take finger prints, and later on in that same clause we deal with the right of search.
Every one of the powers that we take here is a power that no single member of either House of Parliament would for a moment think of or tolerate unless it were supremely necessary. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has therefore had to consider what limitations and safeguards it was possible to put on these powers without impairing their effectiveness. Accordingly he has laid it down that this Bill shall operate only for two years, and that it shall be limited only to those who are endeavouring to enforce a policy on this country with regard to Irish affairs and who have been resident in this country for twenty years or less. With regard to that period of twenty years, many would have desired that it should have been a lesser period, and we should have desired that too; but unfortunately, on looking into the records of those about whom we already know, it was quite clear that any lesser period would not be effective. Then, as your Lordships are aware, the Home Secretary was prepared to accept an Amendment which makes it necessary for him to give a report to the House of Commons Of his activities under this Bill every three months.
As I have said, this Bill is against every natural instinct of every Britisher. On the other hand, many of us will feel that as a means of dealing with this problem not only is it essential but it is really modest compared with the danger with which we are threatened. We have tried to concentrate on the principle of prevention rather than that of punishment. We know that there is a body of unscrupulous and misguided men, caring about neither property nor life, walking about, many of them in fact known to the police; but there has not hitherto been sufficient evidence to stop them from taking this action against our security. Therefore it is with confidence that I ask your Lordships' co-operation in protecting the nation against this danger.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Earl De La Warr.)
11.20 a.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I sincerely lament the necessity for this Bill, and I much regret that in existing circumstances I cannot ask your Lordships to reject it. I regret it most of all, perhaps, because the senseless terrorism that it is designed to suppress constitutes another injury to Ireland herself from which she might well have been spared. The wounds that are hardest to bear in life are those that are inflicted by your own kith and kin. It is an article of faith with these impulsive bomb placers that Irish freedom, whatever that may mean, can be won only through violence. That is a profound mistake. Freedom is the flower and fruit of order, of reason, and of restraint, but never of violence. My right to say this is twofold. First of all I had the privilege of working for Irish freedom long before these impulsive tools of reaction were born, and I had the privilege of working side by side with great Irishmen whose honourable and peaceful service to their country might well have been imitated. Such freedom as Ireland now possesses was born of their character and work and example.
Secondly, I have the right to say what I am saying as representing the British Labour Party. Your Lordships may have whatever reservations you please about the political ideas of that Party, but you must all allow that it is a constitutional Party. In so far as it is revolutionary, it means revolution by reason and by persuasion and general reorganisation, and we have pride in saying that no drop of blood stains its record; no home has ever been bereaved through any of its acts; and at the same time no Socialist Party in the world has got greater gains for those whom it specially represents than the peaceful, constitutional British Labour Party. We believe that force is no remedy for grievances. I sympathise with the desire to extend Irish freedom and so long as the effort to obtain freedom is orderly, we will give it all the support we can. But do these young rebels think that they alone feel indignant at the slow march of events; that they alone feel the pain of iron circumstances? That is an infliction that all of us have to bear, and especially the working classes.
648
I have closely studied during my life the history of revolutionary parties throughout modern history, I am acquainted with the teaching of all the great anarchists, from Bakounin to Mussolini, and I know that they not only failed miserably, but that their activities injured rather than helped that which perhaps they desired to achieve. Force is bad in itself. Civilisation is just the measure of the extent to which violence has been superseded by reason and by co-operation. Force is bad because it injures the cause which it is designed to serve. There, are thousands of decent people in Ireland, to-day, who feel very deeply shamed that these things should be done in her name, and we want to affirm that great events are not to be settled by emotion but by understanding and co-operation. If England is so very hateful to these people, and they want to shake its dust from off their feet, I can promise them that the English people will afford them every facility for doing so.
At the same time, when we come to this Bill, whilst we cannot resist it we cannot applaud it. I ask the House to beware of anything approaching panic legislation, and I suggest that as far as time allows we should give to the provisions of this Bill intense consideration. We do not want to punish for punishment's sake, and we have been taught by the great criminologists that punishment does not end the trouble. I remember that Lombroso said:
"Punishment, far from being a pall to the fanatical, and their nervous diseases, exalts them. … by exciting their thirst for martyrdom."
Let us be careful of that when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill. It seems to me to be a subtle encroachment of the Executive upon personal liberty, and a drift towards government by powers vested in this or that Minister. It is not the only illustration of recent times. There was the Official Secrets Act, and in 1934 your Lordships will remember the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, when half a dozen friends and myself had the privilege of keeping your Lordships sitting until after four o'clock the next morning. I do not know that I am prepared to repeat that, although I think my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is still young enough to enjoy an experience of that kind should it be necessary.

649
I should like before I close to say that whilst we cannot resist the Bill we do very deeply regret that it has to be brought before this House. No Government, of whatever Party, could possibly allow foreign-fed rebellion of this kind to go unsuppressed, but there are things in this Bill which I shall hate to see upon the Statute Book. I intensely dislike taking powers away from the Courts and vesting them in the Home Secretary. I do not see how, under the provisions of this Bill, I am to escape having my finger prints taken, and perhaps being "dragged in" by some Home Secretary at any time. I am perfectly willing to trust Sir Samuel Hoare, as I should have been glad to trust the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, when he, too, was Home Secretary. But it is the investment of the powers of the State in the hands of a single Minister that I think is to be watched very carefully. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to a most highly significant statement which appeared in The Times of two days ago made by Mr. Gandhi in regard to India. India and Ireland are in some ways comparable. They have their differences of religion and differences of race, they are disunited as between loyalists and separationists; the Princes are reluctant to join in. It is almost a parallel case with Ireland, and Mr. Gandhi demands from the Princes full civic liberty, so long as it is not used to promote violence directly or indirectly. He asks that every person accused should have an appeal to the High Court, and he pays this significant tribute, which I ask your Lordships to note:
"This is the one institution which the British have built up with persistent care."
Let us beware lest in our own country we rob the people of the great safeguards that our Courts have offered.
I do not want to say more except, before I sit down, to express my very deep sympathy, I am sure on behalf of your Lordships, to all those who have been injured, and very specially to Mrs. Campbell, a bride so wickedly and tragically widowed. She will receive, I am sure, the sympathy not only of the entire English people, but of all the best that belongs to Ireland herself. We shall with great reluctance consent to the passing of this Bill, but we venture to appeal to your Lordships most carefully to scrutinise its provisions, that we may
650
not carelessly or permanently throw away deeply cherished liberty.
11.33 a.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel sure that there is a general opinion, not merely in this House but elsewhere, that a measure of this nature is urgent and necessary, and the noble Lord who has just sat down in his most eloquent speech said nothing which showed that he differed from that opinion. At the same time, we all have to recognise that the terms of this measure involve a marked departure in certain respects from the established rules of British justice, affecting those who are suspected or accused of the commission of crime. We recognise from what occurred in another place, and from the speech of the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading, that His Majesty's Government in no way resent a close examination of the manner in which such a departure is included in the Bill, and I think it is fair to say that they have done their best to limit the scope of such departure.
At the same time I hope it may not be pharisaical or too complacent to point out that there is probably no country in the world in which a measure of this kind would be discussed as it is here, or in which such a measure would include so many limitations as does this. If a series of outrages of this kind had occurred in Berlin, Rome or in Moscow, the fate of persons guilty of committing them would not have been so carefully guarded, as similar suspects are treated by this measure. But it is by no means only in countries where the government is arbitrary, and where there is a force of secret Government police that this would be true. I believe there is no country in either hemisphere, however liberally governed, in which a measure of this kind would receive the close attention and examination which this measure has done, and I think that is a fact on which we can congratulate ourselves.
A few days ago a noble Lord opposite, Lord Templemore, very kindly alluded to the long period during which I have been a member of your Lordships' House, and I greatly appreciated his kindness. I may perhaps therefore be excused for a moment for referring to what happened in the years 1883, 1884 and 1885, because

651
the history of those years seems to offer a definite excuse for the introduction of a measure of this kind. I do not say anything about what happened in Ireland, but during those three years there was a series of dynamite explosions and outrages in London. Several railway stations were attacked, showing that history repeats itself, the office of The Times newspaper was attacked and the Junior Carlton Club received a violent assault. Why that particular institution was specially singled out I am afraid I cannot attempt to explain. But, beyond that, more than one Public Office was attacked. There was a very narrow escape of a bad explosion in the Houses of Parliament and the Tower of London was seriously damaged. Many trials and convictions took place. If I remember rightly, there were fifteen sentences during those years of penal servitude for life, and a number for shorter terms. In spite of that these outrages continued during the course of three years.
No doubt there was a more widespread discontent among Irishmen and a more extended dislike of the British Government of the day than can be said to exist at present. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, has stated what is the extent of Irish resentment at this moment; but in spite of that it is a defence for the introduction of this measure that during the whole of these three years the dynamite outrages continued notwithstanding the severe punishments which were inflicted. We have also to remember that in some respects there is a greater probability of serious damage than there was then. We all know what science has done for industry, but science has also helped in some respects to facilitate crime, and it cannot be denied that, with the present increased power of explosives and the far more extended knowledge of their use than existed then, harm may well be done on a larger scale than was possible fifty years ago.
I shall not say anything about the proposed Amendments which, I take it, in every case are designed to carry out promises made in another place by His Majesty's Government, and designed to meet certain objections which were raised there. The only point in the Bill to which I would call attention is in the proviso in
652
subsection (1) of Clause 2 in which it is stated that if a person upon whom a notice has been served objects that there are no good grounds or no sufficient grounds for the making of an order against him, the Secretary of State shall, unless he considers the reasons to be frivolous, refer the matter to "a person nominated by him (not being an officer of police or of any Government Department)." I am not quite sure that the intention of that proviso is that in each separate case of objection, as it may occur, the Home Secretary should nominate some person whom he considers qualified to undertake the task, or whether it is proposed that there should be some permanent adviser of the Crown. I should have thought myself that it would add to the comfort and convenience of the Home Secretary if one or two persons were nominated from the first to act as assessors to him in all cases which come before him.
That is a matter in which I have no doubt the Home Secretary will consider the wisest course to take. I fully understand the objection which has been raised to attempting to bring about a quasi-judicial inquiry by nominating a Judge of the High Court to assist the Home Secretary in these cases. That might prove to be misleading; but I should have thought there must be men well qualified by experience in India, perhaps, or in some of the great Colonies, whose advice and assistance regularly given to the Home Secretary in the case of all the inquiries he has to make would have been of real service.
I observe that the noble Earl repeated what has been said elsewhere, that the object of this measure is prevention rather than punishment. That is a hope we shall all share. The more that this can be done by inducing potential criminals to leave the country rather than by waiting until they have committed a crime, the better it will be from every point of view, and the hope may be realised that within the two years named by the Bill the whole danger may, in the main, have disappeared. We all, I think, also agree that it is highly desirable that the Home Secretary should make these periodical reports to Parliament—not to the House of Commons, as I believe the noble Earl inadvertently stated. The report is, of

653
course, made to Parliament, and not to either House individually. In those circumstances, I have nothing to add except to say that I trust the measure may have all the success which His Majesty's Government hope for it, and that it will not bring about any of the unhappy incidents which have been feared by some people.
11.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I feel quite certain that everyone of your Lordships will recognise that this measure has been forced upon us by a deplorable emergency, and we all wish His Majesty's Government every success in dealing with the grave menace to our national life with which we are faced. At the same time, I would venture to express a certain degree of personal disappointment that His Majesty's Government did not find it practicable to deal with the situation by the institution of a system of passports or of identity cards to control to some extent the migration of persons from Southern Ireland to these shores. I do not believe that the migration movement from Ireland to England is a very large one at the present moment. It is not the quantity but the quality of that migration movement that in the opinion of a good many persons who are concerned with social work needs some restriction and control.
I very much hope that the Government will give earnest consideration to the fact that the migration movement from Ireland to England is, as far as I know, the only migration movement in the world which is in no way controlled, and that they will consider the evidence which tends to show that some degree of control such as might have been afforded by a passport system is urgently called for, not merely in the interests of this country but in the interests of Ireland, and above all in the interests of certain persons who undertake the adventure of migration from one country to another without possessing those qualities which are very urgently needed for the successful migrant. I am of opinion that the day will come when such a system of control will have to be set up, and it should include—here again I am speaking particularly in the interests of the migrants themselves—some efficient system of deportation, not of criminals so much as of those persons who are not fitted by their character to face life in the cities of this country. I am well aware
654
that I have opened a subject which cannot now be considered, but I would venture to take this opportunity of urging future consideration of this migration upon His Majesty's Government.
11.54 p.m.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I think it is quite clear the country as a whole is so heartily in support of His Majesty's Government, though disappointed in some respects that such a necessity has arisen, that it is not necessary to raise any voice in support of this measure. I rise, however, because of a phrase that fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Snell opposite, which I fear might possibly be torn from its context and be used for purposes that he never intended. He made use of the phrase "beware of panic legislation." That phrase has a sense which we all know well here, but it might be used in certain quarters to suggest that a state of panic was arising, and that these abominable practices were, to a certain extent, meeting with success. I feel sure the noble Lord holds no such view, and that he would ridicule the suggestion that the working classes of this country are panicking. And what is true of them is equally true of other classes in this country. I feel sure that anyone who is not seriously mentally unbalanced, will realise that the attempt to produce panic among British people by means of violence is a long and an uphill task leading invariably to disappointment and disillusion.
11.56 a.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, crimes such as these against God and man must be dealt with vigorously, and the Bill now being debated by your Lordships is a most necessary one. I very much, however, regret to note that in the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, no mention at all was made of the most effective deterrent against crimes of this nature, that of flogging, and that there is no mention of it in the Bill. Looking back on my youth I can speak with considerable feeling and much personal experience of that matter, as no doubt many of your Lordships will be able to do, too. I feel that a matter of this kind is so serious that I will ask your Lordships to consider as to whether some specific provision should not be made to include in this measure the greatest deterrent against dastardly crimes of this kind—that of flogging.
11.58 a.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I rise only to thank your Lordships for the reception that has been given to this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, will forgive me if I do not follow him into what seems to me rather, perhaps, anticipating another Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Darcy (de Knayth) can rest assured that no one in this House or the Government is thinking of panic legislation. Indeed I hope the noble Lord may have noticed that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on that point were received with applause on the Benches of His Majesty's Government. There is in fact, as we all know, no state of panic whatsoever in this country, but one of quite steady determination to deal with this matter. If I may say so, I think all these discussions have been yet further proof that Parliamentary freedom of discussion means not weakness but strength and that we here in this country have sufficient confidence in our belief in justice and law to be prepared to suspend, for dealing with a specific problem, the normal operation of the law, confident because we know that it will leave untouched our principles of real freedom and liberty. Only one other point has been raised in the debate which might be allowed to mention. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, put forward certain considerations with regard to the appointment of the advisers of my right honourable friend and I can assure him that I will certainly lay those considerations before the Home Secretary.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of Monday last:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of Secretary of State to make orders.
1.—(1) With a view to preventing the commission in Great Britain of acts of violence designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to Irish affairs, the Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by this section:
Provided that he shall make a report to Parliament at least once in every three months as to the number of occasions upon which such powers have been exercised and the number of persons affected thereby.
(2) If the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that any person in Great Britain, not being a person who in his opinion is and has been throughout the last preceding twenty years ordinarily resident in Great Britain, is concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as aforesaid, or is knowingly harbouring any other person so concerned, he may make an order (in this Act referred to as an "expulsion order") against that person requiring him to leave Great Britain.
12.1 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the Amendment to subsection (2) should be read together. The purpose is to make it clear that the Secretary of State shall not make an expulsion order in the case of a person under twenty years of age if he has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain throughout the whole of his life. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out lines 11 to 14.—(Earl De La Warr).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("Britain") to the end of line 18.—(Earl De La Warr).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment, in subsection (2), is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("concerned") insert ("and that he is not a person who has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain throughout the last preceding twenty years, or in the case of a person under the age of twenty years throughout his life,")—(Earl De La Warr).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, after ("name") insert ("and")—(Earl De La Warr).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out from the first ("person") to ("is") in line 22.—(Earl De La Warr).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and that he is not a person who has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain throughout the last preceding twenty years, or in the case of a person under the age of twenty years throughout his life,")—(Earl De La Warr).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (5):
"(6) Any notice of an order served on a person in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall contain a statement informing him of his right to object and to make representations to the Secretary of State within forty-eight hours after the service of the notice and of the manner in which such representations may be made, and in the case of a notice of an expulsion order or registration order the notice shall also inform the person upon whom it is served whether the order has been made against him—

(a) by reason of his being concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as aforesaid; or

(b) by reason of his knowingly harbouring another person so concerned."

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this additional provision is to make sure that a person served with a notice of an expulsion order or a registration order is informed that the order is made on certain grounds. Those grounds are by reason of his being concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of violence, or by reason of his knowingly harbouring another person so concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, at end insert:
"(6) The Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament at least once in every three months as to the number of occasions on which orders have been made by him under this section and the number of persons with respect to whom such orders have been made."—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Effect of expulsion orders and prohibition orders.
2.—(1) Any person on whom notice of an expulsion order or of a prohibition order made against him has been served, shall leave Great Britain in accordance with the requirements specified in the notice and shall thereafter, while the order is in force, remain outside Great Britain:
Provided that …
EARL DE LA WARR: The first Amendment to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, at the beginning insert ("Subject as hereinafter provided").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), after "Great Britain," immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "and any person upon whom notice of a registration order has been served shall comply with the requirements specified in the notice." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment should be read together. The purpose is to give any person against whom a registration order is made the same right to object as is given to a person served with an expulsion or prohibition order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and any person upon whom notice of a registration order has been served shall comply with the requirements specified in the notice.")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("such a") and insert ("any such").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not rise to oppose any part of this Bill at all, and I follow entirely the line taken by my noble friend Lord Snell, but before we pass this clause I think it right to point out how drastic an alteration we are making in the law. I think it is well that the public at large should know this. It has a bearing upon what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said. These are British subjects with whom we are dealing. It would be wrong, I suggest, to treat them as foreigners and give them passports. I have here the unrepealed portions of Magna Carta which, after all, is the foundation of our liberty. The original document is now in New York, where it has been the subject of the very greatest interest. With your Lordships' permission I will read the relevant part of it. I have had to quote it in Parliament before in connection with the misuse by the Executive of the passport regulations and the withholding of visas which I have always said is ultra vires. This is the passage:
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."
Prohibition of outlawry is on the Statute Book, and we are waiving it now for this period of two years to meet these particular circumstances. We cannot help it, we support it, but I think that fact should be known.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Detention and identification of suspects, and searches.
4.—(1) Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects to have committed an offence under this Act or any person whom he reasonably suspects to be a person against whom an expulsion order or a prohibition order has been made, and may detain any person so suspected of being a person against whom such an order
660
has been made pending the determination of the question whether he is such a person:
Provided that no such person shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours except with the authority of the Secretary of State expressly given in each case.
(2) Any person detained under powers conferred by this Act shall be deemed to be in lawful custody and may be detained in any prison or in any other place directed by the Secretary of State; and the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Section eight of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, as to the measuring and photographing of prisoners who may for the time being be confined in any prison, shall extend to the making of regulations as to the measuring and photographing of persons arrested or detained under this Act who may for the time being be detained in any place.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "has been made," where those words first occur, and insert "is in force, or to be a person concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as are mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of this Act." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the next three on the Paper ought to be read together. Their object is to confer additional powers on a constable to arrest a person on suspicion—on suspicion, that is, that he is concerned in the preparation of an act of violence described in the Bill. Under it that person may be detained until the Secretary of State has had time to consider the case and to decide whether it is one in which he should make an expulsion order or a registration order. These Amendments provide that a person may not be detained more than forty-eight hours without the authority of the Secretary of State and in no case for more than seven days. Recent events have shown that the police are very greatily handicapped in having no power to arrest or detain people who may be believed to be implicated in a conspiracy, because although they may be seen with certain persons, be discussing certain matters with known suspects in very highly suspicious circumstances, the information that the police could place before a magistrate would not ordinarily be enough to justify the magistrate ordering a remand pending the prosecution of inquiries. The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("has been made") and insert ("is in force, or to be a

661
person concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as are mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 31, leave out ("has been made") and insert ("is in force or of being a person still concerned as aforesaid").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("no") to ("for") in line 34 and insert ("person shall be detained under the powers of detention conferred by this section").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: There is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("hours") to the first ("of") in line 35 and insert ("or such further period not exceeding five days as may be authorised by direction").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "other places directed" and insert "police station or other similar place authorised." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make it clear that a person can only be detained in a prison or a police station or similar place authorised by the Secretary of State. There was some criticism made in another place that as the Bill was drafted the Secretary of State could authorise a person to be detained at some other place, that is, at some secret place of which his friends did not know. That was never intended, and this Amendment is designed to make that clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, leave out from the second ("any") to ("by") in line 40 and insert ("police station or other similar place authorised").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think I ought perhaps to mention to your Lordships that when the noble Earl was speaking on his first Amendment to this clause an Amendment was handed to me proposing in Clause 3 (1) to insert, after "two years," in line 6 on page 2, the words "and ten strokes of the birch." I could not put that Amendment then because it was too late. I understand, however, that the noble Lord who handed the Amendment to me will wish to have it considered on Report, and as the Report stage will follow immediately I thought I should inform your Lordships.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be now received.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 3:
Offences and penalties.
3.—(1) If any person on whom notice of an expulsion order or of a prohibition order made against him has been served—

(a) fails to comply with any requirement specified in the notice, or

(b) is after leaving Great Britain or after being placed on board a ship in accordance with the provisions of this Act found in Great Britain while the order is in force,

he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months.
12.12 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved, in subsection (1), after "two years", to insert "and ten strokes of the birch". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have nothing more to submit to your Lordships on this matter, but I feel that this is an addition that could properly be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("two years") insert ("and ten strokes of the birch").—(Lord Sempill).
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill,

663
but I think this is rather a sound suggestion. There is nothing that the Irishman objects to so much as ridicule, and if he gets even ten strokes of the birch it will not do him any harm except that, when he gets into the prison and meets his fellow-convicts, they will all turn round to him and significantly rub the seats of their trousers. That may act as a much greater deterrent than several years in prison.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think I said what little I had to say on this matter on the Second Reading. I would only add one word—namely, that the principle of this Bill is prevention rather than punishment. We have to realise that the offences that are provided for under this Bill are all offences in anticipation, and also matters to be dealt with without trial. Such punishments as are provided under this Bill are for the disobeying of certain orders that are laid down. Whatever we feel about the merits of flogging—I see that the Amendment does not actually deal with flogging but with birching—surely none of us could say that people should be birched for being thought to be contemplating some future action. You might say that they should be expelled, and we certainly do say that they should be expelled, or compelled to register, or refused permission to enter the country. The noble Lord is, however, seeking to carry the matter very much further.
LORD LLOYD: May I ask the noble Earl if, where punishment is meted out, flogging is a part of it? Presumably there is punishment under this Bill. I have not had the opportunity of studying it very carefully, but I suppose that is so.
EARL DE LA WARR: No, my Lords, and I think it would be completely missing the purpose of this Bill if it were. After all, if a person has actually committed an offence, he then comes under the normal law of the country. This Bill is for dealing with people who have not committed an offence; it is to prevent them from having the opportunity to commit an offence. I stress again that the only point at which any punishment comes into this Bill is when a person disobeys an order of the Government. It is like committal for contempt of court, but actually in this case it is contempt of an order of the Home Secretary.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, for many reasons. The first is that if it is accepted and goes to another place, it will be resisted and the Bill may not pass at all. Secondly, remember that if it were passed it would include women as well, according to the wording of the Bill. Thirdly, we are not here to produce dramatic legislation of that kind. In justification of his Amendment, the noble Lord said that when he was young he had had personal experiences of punishment of that kind. Well, I really cannot say that I think the result justifies his experience, and I hope your Lordships will not accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MILK INDUSTRY (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
12.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this Bill is purely a domestic matter of the House of Commons, it does not impose any charge of any kind on public funds, and it is not a Government measure. I presume, therefore, that your Lordships will not wish to discuss it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of Monday last:
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.
Read 3a, (according to Order) and passed.

PARLIAMENT AND THE RECESS.
12.20 p.m.
LORD LLOYDhad the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the political risks that may be involved in Parliament adjourning on the 4th of August. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to the danger, as I deem it, of the dispersal of Parliament at the present time, may I point out for a few moments the continuing gravity of the political situation in Europe in order to emphasize my Motion that this House should not adjourn at the present time? Almost a year ago to-day, in very different circumstances, Parliament went into Recess with a certain feeling of confidence and optimism. It is quite true that the country and the British Empire were in no way directly committed to intervention if the Czechoslovak difficulties led to war. We were only concerned, so far as we were concerned, in the general peace of Europe, and in the manner in which this affected our friends on the Continent. Almost exactly a year ago, on July 26 of last year, it was announced that my noble friend Lord Runciman would undertake his mission of mediation, and this plan was given a kind of welcome in Berlin that led some people to hope there might be a peaceful solution, although private information showed us that the aims that were then before the Government in Berlin were altogether divorced from any ideas of a peaceful settlement. However, Parliament went on a holiday with optimistic feelings, but returned in September under the dreadful stress and uncertainty of a major upheaval in Central Europe.
What I would like your Lordships to reflect to-day is whether this is to happen again, and whether it is likely to happen again. None of your Lordships would have any doubt that the international situation to-day is extremely grave. We
666
can best judge of the international situation, and its real temperature, not from what appears on the surface, although there is enough on the surface to warrant a very great deal of concern, but from the steadily increasing military activities throughout the world, and not least in Europe. If we look near at hand, we see German armed forces mustering much in the same way as they did last year, and great military activities all over the country. No doubt we shall receive the same answer as we did before, that these are but "normal summer manoeuvres." Poland has been in a state of advanced mobilisation ever since March in defence of her soil and arteries of trade, France this year has produced an industrial and financial effort, a military organisation, and above all a spirit of determination that has rejoiced though not surprised her friends, and given pause to her enemies. Great Britain, as we all know, has made an immense effort, a gigantic effort, of rearmament, and our forces are going to be in a state of entire preparedness during the next two months. The defences of London are constantly manned, the Fleet and Air Force are in readiness, and a greater number of troops are in training camps than we have had at any time since the Great War. Not a single person in this country but is clearly advised now of the enormous importance of the present weeks—the dramatic importance of the present weeks—and even during the holiday period our rearmament programme and our military dispositions are going to proceed in accordance as the military situation demands.
That is only the briefest recital of the situation in which Parliament is going to disperse entirely. So much, in a few words, for the military situation as an index to the gravity of the moment. What about the political situation in Europe, which concerns more immediately Parliament itself? This is by no means at all clearly defined. It is not a situation in which Parliamentary assistance and advice ought to be dispensed with. Our political arrangements are not nearly so advanced as our military arrangements. Early this year, after the seizure of Albania had discomforted our friends and allies on the Continent, it was considered that to make Europe secure against aggression this summer, two major political events were needed.

667
Much has been done by the Foreign Secretary. Rumania, Turkey, Portugal, Greece, all those countries, some of them among our oldest friends and some our new friends, have gathered round us in our attempts to thwart the aggressor, but there are two major political events that are essential to prevent further aggression in Europe this summer, which have not yet been settled. It was thought that the two best deterrents against aggression would be an understanding with Soviet Russia, on the one hand, and new American legislation on the Neutrality Act on the other. On the one hand the American Congress has gone into recess without altering the Neutrality Act, and on the other our negotiations with Russia, although they have, as I understand, made considerable progress, certainly have not yet been concluded. I am not one of those who wonder at the length of time that these negotiations have taken. Our rivals and critics, of course, have been quick to imply that there is very serious disagreement between Soviet Russia and Great Britain and France. I understand that that is really not the case, and at any rate it is not the main reason for the delay. The reason for the delay is that the pact we are aiming at completing embraces a very large number of States. Almost every European State has some interest in these negotiations, and it is not the custom of Great Britain and France to ride roughshod over the interests of other States in our diplomacy.
The point that I desire to make is that neither of these events—over one of which we have no control, but to the other of which we are busily engaged in giving effect—has been concluded; and besides that, there are events in the Far East which demand urgent and continued attention by both Houses. If all the indignities and insults heaped upon British nationals in the Far East in the past few months—if the attacks upon the British position and prestige which have been made in the past few months—had been suffered by us a few years ago, I cannot imagine that Parliament would have suffered them so supinely and calmly, and gone away on holiday, saying "This is all right, the Government will deal with the matter without us". Is Parliament to count for nothing in these days? I say very sincerely that to me it is amazing
668
that in a moment of supreme crisis—I shall be accused by the Government, to use a very unfortunate expression, which was brought over by a member of the Government's Party from America, of "having the jitters," but merely to show apprehension of and to talk about a fact is not to show fear of it—to me it is an amazing thing that at the gravest crisis in the history of the world—that is no exaggeration—Parliament should calmly go away on August 12, or slightly before, so that there should be no accidents, and that nobody should think it odd or strange. We have taken upon ourselves the headship, and quite rightly; we are in the van of those nations who are pledged to resist aggression. And Parliament goes away, and shoots grouse!
At the present moment all is fairly quiet in Central Europe and Eastern Europe, but any day there can break out in Poland instigated disturbances like those that we witnessed in Sudetenland about this time last year; disturbances like those which are to-day being instigated in China, disturbances like those which occurred in Slovakia early this year, and those which are strangely troubling this country, too, in our very midst, at the present time—instigated disturbances. Is Parliament to pay no heed to this? Are they no care of Parliament? Is Parliament of so little value that no Government wants its advice? Is Parliament not to be consulted on these grave matters? These disturbances, say in the case of Poland, may not weaken Poland in the military sense, but they might be calculated, by those who instigate them, as being likely to drive the more timorous sections of public opinion in this country towards misgivings on the commitments which we have so clearly undertaken. All those things need the strength and the vigour of Parliament in Session behind the Government to prevent them.
The Prime Minister, it is true, made on July 10 a most precise statement that we would support Poland in defending her interests in Danzig, and the admirable speech of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary remains the guide and the guarantee of our foreign policy throughout these grave weeks and months. I think it is lucky that that speech was made, particularly fortunate because the smaller manifestations of our policy are not always clarifying to Europe. For

669
instance, I should not be very surprised if some of our Allies were a little puzzled if they found, for instance, one member of the Government on one day making, I will not say improper difficulties, but making great difficulties about a loan worth about £35,000,000 to one of our friends, and another member of the Government the next day advocating a loan of £1,000,000,000 to one of our potential enemies.
I think we need Parliament here to point to Europe what is the real feeling of the country, and continually to do it lest these cloudy little incidents should occur. Luckily those plans of which I have just spoken have been firmly scotched by His Majesty's Government, and scotched not only in London but also, I was glad to see, in Berlin. I am speaking very seriously. I have not any hope that His Majesty's Government will listen to me or my friends on this occasion, but at any rate we shall have discharged a duty when we point out the enormous weight and burden of responsibility which His Majesty's Government are taking on their shoulders in not keeping Parliament in being, or, if not in perpetual being, in constant being, during the next few weeks. I cannot imagine a step that would have a more dramatic, and at the same time a more definite, effect upon public opinion in Europe towards peace than to see this great mark of vigilance, unaccustomed vigilance, on the part of this country in maintaining its Parliament in session for all eventualities. After all, the Territorials are not going on holiday this August and September; they are going to be at work, training: they are going to do their job. The munition workers are not going to have holidays; they are going to stand by.
If I may anticipate a possible objection by my noble friend, I. do not think that to do what my Motion suggests would be to cause lack of confidence. I repeat, I think it would give enormous confidence to our Allies and friends all over Europe. Perhaps my noble friend will object that it would be a mark of lack of confidence in His Majesty's Government to keep Parliament in being. I have heard that reply given or suggested. Is it really a lack of confidence in the Government that Parliament, on which His Majesty's Government depend, and from which they derive, should be at their side to support
670
and help them during the most critical days of the year? Perhaps my noble friend on the other hand will reply: "Well, Parliament can very rapidly be summoned." It cannot be summoned so rapidly as the Dictators can take action. That is certain. You cannot summon Parliament and bring it back under at least two to three days. And we know what has happened, what still may happen in a few hours in the state of Europe to-day. Everybody is aware of Parliament's desire to have a little rest, but I think that rest could be postponed for a month, with immense advantage to the country and to the world. It is not much to ask members of Parliament, for once in their lives, to sit through a month of August during which we have to face the gravest dangers that we may have to anticipate for some considerable time to come.
I do hope that my noble friend will seriously consider this. I am perfectly aware of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. Some of us have not had the opportunity in this House of raising this question, but the Prime Minister replied in answer to a question that Parliament could rapidly be summoned, and the dispositions which he thought necessary for the summoning of Parliament would be made. That is not the same thing as keeping Parliament in session, either from a preventive point of view or from an actual point of view. It is an entirely different thing to let Parliament disperse, and then call it together after the event. The Prime Minister is not going to call Parliament together from its holidays unless something is immediately about to occur, or has occurred. My noble friend knows perfectly well that it must be too late in nine cases out of ten, in the particular circumstances which now prevail. I do hope that my noble friend will convey to the Prime Minister the sentiments that a great many of us feel both in this House and in another place.
12.38 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling attention to this matter, inasmuch as friends of mine in another place have taken similar action. We feel that, under the circumstances prevailing, it would be wrong on the part of Parliament to cease its control over the public affairs of the country. The Government may think it an incon-

671
venient, and even pernicious, fancy, but members of Parliament do really feel that they, and not the Ministers for the time being, are responsible in the long run for what is done in England's name. They feel that they have duties and responsibilities which they cannot delegate—at least they cannot give a free hand to the Government at this time. What we suspect is that the Government have an unspoken desire to lock the doors of this place, and to be free from the troubles which accompany the existence of a vulgar assembly like the British Parliament. I understand that. I am as tired as anybody myself, and should welcome very much a rest, but at the same time we have very serious duties to perform that we cannot neglect because of our own desires.
As I have understood it, the Prime Minister has made a statement in another place, which the noble Lord has indicated, that Parliament could be called together quickly. But Parliament is the supreme authority in this country, and we intend, so far as we have the power, to insist that it shall so remain. We believe the nation feels safer when Parliament is meeting, when day-to-day statements can be examined and scrutinised by Parliament itself, and when it keeps control of the Executive. We feel, too, that the British people have a higher opinion of their Parliament than the Prime Minister appears to have. It seems to me that he is specially ungrateful, because no Prime Minister has ever had more generous treatment from any Parliament than the present Prime Minister has had. Our point is not quite that of the noble Lord. What we fear is that, once Parliament is up, the Government will change their policy, and when we come back that policy will be something that has happened and we shall be asked to agree to what will be called a fact in the name of political realism. We cannot, we dare not, and we do not tryst His Majesty's Government in this matter. The Government must bear the disadvantages of their own character. As we understand it, not only do their enemies dislike them, but very few of their friends trust them. On these grounds and on many others we ask that Parliament, if it does not sit continuously, shall be called together at short periods for two or three days as the case may be so that the
672
British Parliament may function as the supreme authority in this country.
12.43 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I have a great admiration for the energies and objects of my noble friend Lord Lloyd, but I am extremely sorry to differ absolutely from him on this occasion. Has he considered all the political risks that may be run if Parliament continues to sit? My noble friend was not very long ago in another place, but, apart from his experience there, if he will run his eye down the OFFICIAL REPORT Of another place day by day, he will see a series of carping, prying, self-advertising questions which divert the attention of Ministers from their work, impose an immense burden on the civil servants, and are particularly liable to cause misrepresentation and distortion elsewhere. I would remind him that in a similar case M. Daladier has been able to see as little of his own Chamber as he possibly can. After all, what can Parliament do, however grave may be the situation? What did Parliament do in the last week or fortnight before the War in 1914? I remember being in it, and I remember the general nervousness, but in the end Parliament could bring no pressure to bear and the Government had to do their best without it.
Supposing the worst comes and some crisis suddenly emerges, what advantage would there be in a day or two of Parliament being called together? It is not Parliament that declares war; it is the Government and the King, and if legislation—imperative and immediate legislation—is necessary, then any Ministry worthy of the name would give its orders and go for an Act of Indemnity afterwards. I am afraid the only result of taking the noble Lord's advice would be to impose a perfectly unnecessary strain on the Government, and the only people who would benefit would be the makers of stunts who have been only too busy in the last fifteen or eighteen months.
12.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, we have listened to a very interesting attack on the whole system of Parliamentary Government delivered by a Conservative Peer. It is not the first time in the last few years that Conservative Peers and Conservative Ministers have made attacks on the liberties of Parliament.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I remind the noble Viscount that it was his father who said that the British Constitution is not a good fighting machine?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not know whether it is a good fighting machine, but I do know this, that in 1914 the Government of the day thought it necessary to have Parliament meeting every fortnight at least.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): Did it act in time as the result of being there?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am only pointing out that, in the view of the Government which had to conduct the Great War, it was very desirable to have Parliament continually in session, continually able to give advice, and continually able to explain to the people what the necessities of the situation really were. I am, unhappily, a complete believer in the Parliamentary system. I believe it is the best system that has yet been devised for government in this country and, I incline to think, elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Rankeilour thought it a useful observation to refer to what has been done in France. There are reasons for that which no doubt are admirable. I have nothing to say as to what happens in France. There Parliament has been set on one side in order to enable the Government of the day to carry through legislation which they doubted would be accepted by Parliament. That may be a proper thing in France. It would be a very dangerous precedent to follow in this country. I wonder my noble friend did not go a little further and appeal to the precedent of Germany or Italy. I expect he would greatly prefer government of the kind that now prevails in Germany or Italy. There you get rid of Parliament altogether. If Parliament is a bad thing, let us get rid of it. If Parliament is a good thing, let us make use of it to the fullest extent. I have little sympathy with this kind of attack on Parliament. I am quite sure the Government is stronger and better when Parliament is sitting than when Parliament is not sitting—at any rate, this Government is.
I have only a word or two to add to what fell from my noble friend Lord Lloyd, because I agree with every word he said. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the depth of anxiety that pre-
674
vails, not in this country only, not chiefly in this country, but all over the world—in America, Asia, and Europe. That anxiety is very largely concerned with what course the British Government are going to take. I do not want to make controversial observations about that more than I can possibly help, but it is the case that there is profound misgiving in all these countries—and I, personally, and others, have had direct evidence of it—as to what is going to happen in this country. It may be most unjust, but it exists. I can imagine nothing which would more tend to put an end to that anxiety than a statement by the Government that they were prepared to maintain Parliamentary control of the Executive even through the ordinary holiday season. That is all my noble friend is asking. He referred to Europe. He might have referred to Asia and America. The Asiatic situation seems to me, in some respects, the most anxious of all. We shall have an opportunity for discussing it and I am not going to go into it to-day. I do not suppose anyone will doubt that on the issue of what is now taking place in the Far East may well depend the whole future of our Asiatic Dominions and Possessions.
The situation is really extraordinarily acute and difficult. I cannot but feel myself that Parliament would be invaluable in case some difficulty arises, in case some doubt may exist in the mind of the Government as to how far they can go with the support of the people of this country. It seems to me, for all those reasons, the presence of Parliament may be of the greatest possible assistance to the Government, though I quite recognise, exhausted as they must be, every one of them, by their labours, they are anxious to be free of the additional labours of Parliament. I do beg them to consider whether in the end their responsibilities will not be lessened if they have Parliament there to advise them and to support them in the very great difficulties that may come upon them at any moment.
It is all very well to say that you will call Parliament together if some great emergency arises. Look back on the last few months. Is it not true to say that scarcely a week has passed without some great event occurring of which Parliament and the people have a right to know, and which the Government ought to desire, and I have no doubt do desire, to explain fully to the people and to Parliament, so

675
that they may receive support to which they may be entitled? I will not continue the debate, because all has been said that need be said. I think that if the Government would make a gesture, a gesture of vigilance, a gesture of Parliamentary confidence, at this moment it would enormously increase their power for good in the very grave situation in which we find ourselves.
12.53 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my only title for intervening in this debate is that, unfortunately, I myself have had considerably longer experience of Parliament than anyone present to-day. I entirely agree with my noble friend behind me that there is nothing to be gained from the course proposed by my noble friend upon the Cross Benches. Nobody is going to dispute the seriousness of the position, and what makes the position perhaps even more serious, I am perfectly certain in my own mind, is that nobody in the Cabinet, and nobody in any important position in this country, has the least idea what may happen within the next few weeks. In addition, what is gained by keeping, as the noble Lord apparently would like to do, Parliament in continuous session? He apparently is under the impression that the country is desirous that, so to speak, Parliament should be in permanent session. I suppose that is his experience of the outside world, but I can only say that my own experience is totally different. Whenever there is a really dangerous crisis I hear people on all sides say: "What a blessing it is that Parliament is not sitting," and I confess that I agree with this view.
In this country we produce a special monopoly of politicians who invariably side with the enemies of this country when a dangerous situation arises. They cannot resist the opportunity of creating difficulties. Somebody once—I rather think it was Lord Randolph Churchill—invented a most unfortunate slogan. He said it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I do not think that anything said in this country has ever done more harm than that principle. The fact is that Party Politics are so ingrained and so marked in this country that the people are unable to suppress them, and they cannot put aside, even when they are faced with a world crisis, the prospect of finding fault
676
with their political opponents. I do not mean to say that this is applicable only to one side. It is a particular feature in English political character that there are always people who will oppose what the Government propose to do, and that constitutes a very considerable danger. I think that upon the whole much the best course is to leave things alone.
Unlike the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, I have complete confidence in the two men who are principally responsible for our policy, the present Prime Minister and Lord Halifax, and I cannot think of any other two persons in this country who would command more confidence. I personally should much prefer to leave them alone and wait until some decisive event has happened and then call Parliament together. In the meanwhile I think they have shown not only to us but to the world that they are above all desirous of maintaining world peace. I do not think there is anybody, except a few eccentric persons, in this country who doubt their purpose, and, that being so, I think we can safely leave them alone and wait till the emergency really occurs.
12.56 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I confess I was not the least surprised at the two noble Lords opposite supporting the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Lloyd. After all, Lord Snell, as Lord Newton has said, has the duty of opposing, and we know from what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has constantly said that he utterly mistrusts the Government. I cannot imagine any better proof of the reason for Parliament going into recess than the speech to which we have listened from him this morning. He quite definitely implied, although he was much too clever to say so, that he thought the moment Parliament had risen the Government would then have an opportunity of changing their policy and doing something quite different from what they tell Parliament. That is not the view of those who believe in and support people such as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I am somewhat surprised at my noble friend Lord Lloyd taking the view he has. He spoke of the political risks. What are the political risks? In the ordinary course of events this House rises on Thursday evening and does not

677
meet again until Tuesday. I entirely agree with him that in these days at any time a crisis might arise with great suddenness. It is because of that that we have thought even a gap in the meetings of this House between Thursday and Tuesday might be too long, and I put upon the Paper—and your Lordships agreed to it on the 25th May of this year—a Motion that at any time the House could be called together either by the Lord Chancellor or in his absence by the Chairman of Committees, if that was necessary. Now I am informed—
LORD LLOYD: I do not want to interrupt, but of course the period is much shorter in the case of the House of Commons; it is from Friday afternoon to Monday.
EARL STANHOPE: I still happen to think there are two Houses of Parliament, and therefore if anything has to be discussed or declared by His Majesty's Government this House should be summoned no less than the other House. Therefore, as I say, we took steps to close up even the gap between Thursday and Tuesday, in case that should be found to be too long, and the House can be summoned to receive any statement or take any action it thinks fit. That does not come to an end when we rise on Friday of next week. The power will still remain with the Lord Chancellor, or in his absence with the Chairman of Committees, to summon the House together at any time. Therefore, unless my noble friend really suggests that in these days the House ought to meet seven days a week all through the twelve months of the year, I fail to see what political risk he thinks we are taking.
What it really comes down to is this. If you trust His Majesty's Government then you have to rely on the Executive to summon Parliament at any time if a crisis should arise on which Parliament should be informed and on which we desire to consult Parliament. Of course if you do not trust the Government then I quite understand a Motion of this kind being pressed. But I should have thought there was another point of view, and that is this. No ship when she is at sea has her men standing always by their war stations. That does not mean that that ship is not ready, but it does mean that
678
you do not expect anything to arise so suddenly that you cannot keep those men either at rest or under ordinary training, carrying out their usual routine, and yet able to go to their war stations in time to meeet any attack. That is exactly what the position will be with regard to Parliament. We propose—in fact we have in this House already taken action and no doubt the House of Commons will do the same thing—to take action to enable either House of Parliament to be summoned at any time.
I should think that, so far from disregarding any real political risk, that was the wise thing to do, and that to keep Parliament in session is really to encourage certain of the dictator countries to think that everything that they may say or do is of such importance that we must always be waiting on the tips of our toes wondering what is going to happen next. I should have thought the more dignified thing would be that Parliament should follow its normal procedure, but should take such steps as are necessary so that Parliament can be summoned in the very shortest possible space of time in order to take any action or be informed of any situation at any moment when that became desirable. That is what His Majesty's Government propose to do, and I should have thought that was the wise way of doing it. I hope that my noble friend after further consideration will think so, too.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR (SUPERANNUATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (KIRKINTILLOCH STREET IMPROVEMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW ELECTRICITY, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:

Finance,

Post Office and Telegraph (Money),

Prevention of Damage by Rabbits,

680

House to House Collections,

Mining Industry (Amendment),

Milk Industry,

Overseas Trade Guarantees,

Agricultural Development,

House of Commons Members' Fund,

Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions),

Public Trustee (General Deposit Fund),

Port Glasgow Burgh and Harbour Order Confirmation,

Stirling Burgh Order Confirmation,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (North Lindsey Water Board),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wembley),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bacup),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Falmouth),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hemel Hempstead),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) joint Sewerage District),

Newquay and District Water,

Colne Valley Water,

West Surrey Water,

Falmouth Docks,

Bristol Waterworks,

Walsall Corporation,

Southampton Harbour,

Medway Conservancy,

Bootle Corporation,

National Trust,

Macclesfield Corporation,

Coventry Corporation,

London Passenger Transport,

Clergy (National Emergency Precautions).

BARLEY SCHEME, 1939.
Scheme under the Agricultural Development Act, 1939, for the making of subsidy payments to growers of barley in the United Kingdom:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday next.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past two o'clock.