Lords Sitting of 10 July 1940

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CALDECOTE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Truck Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Caldecote.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Compensation Fund]:
LORD WRIGHT: The first Amendment on the Paper is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, after ("and") insert ("the provisions of").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The next Amendment is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("other than paragraph 5 and sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) of paragraph 4 thereof").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reduction of stamp duties on practising certificates]:
LORD WRIGHT LORD WRIGHT moved to omit Clause 2. The noble and learned Lord
856
said: This clause provides for the reduction of the Stamp Duty payable by solicitors on their practising certificates. The Treasury are not willing to agree to that reduction and, that being so, the Law Society feel that they must drop the proposal. Therefore I move that the clause be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Delivery of accountant's certificates to Registrar.
3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section every solicitor shall once in each practice year deliver to the Registrar a certificate signed by an accountant and complying with the provisions of this section (which certificate is in this section referred to as "an accountant's certificate").
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a solicitor who satisfies the Council that the delivery of an accountant's certificate is impracticable.
LORD WRIGHT: The first Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, after ("that") insert ("owing to the circumstances of his case")—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The next Amendment on the Paper is to substitute the word "unnecessary" for "impracticable." The word "impracticable" is obscure and the word "unnecessary" will better meet the circumstances, because the Law Society in certain cases may relieve a solicitor from delivering accounts if they think it unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("impracticable") and insert ("unnecessary").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The next Amendment is exactly the same.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("impracticable") and insert ("unnecessary").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Discretion of Registrar in special cases to refuse practising certificate or issue same subject to terms and conditions]:
LORD WRIGHT: In this clause there was a clerical error, the word "ten"—["Section ten"]—being put instead of the word "thirteen." It is proposed after the word "thirteen" to add a short description of Section 13 which is referred to by the word "thirteen." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, leave out ("ten") and insert ("thirteen (effect and termination of suspension and notification of suspension or of termination thereof)").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Provisions as to clerk found party to misconduct of solicitor]:
LORD WRIGHT LORD WRIGHT moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert:
"(1) (a) Where a person who is or was a clerk to a solicitor but is not himself a solicitor has been convicted of larceny, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion or any other criminal offence in respect of any money or property belonging to or held or controlled by the solicitor by whom he is or was employed or any client of such solicitor; or"
The noble and learned Lord said: This clause deals with cases in which the Law Society are empowered to refuse consent or to prohibit solicitors from employing particular individuals who have been guilty of offences in connection with other solicitors who have been employing them. As the Bill was drafted Clause 17 only referred to cases in which clerks employed by solicitors had been found guilty of offences in the course of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee. In those cases the Law Society were empowered to say that other solicitors should not employ those clerks without their consent, subject to an appeal. The proposed Amendment extends that by making the provision apply to cases where the offending party has been convicted of certain offences—larceny, embezzlement and so on—
"in respect of any money or property belonging to or held or controlled by the solicitor by whom he is or was employed, or any client of such solicitor."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 29, at beginning insert the said new words.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The next three Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg leave to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 29, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(b)")
Page 16, line 30, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)")
Page 16, line 33, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT LORD WRIGHT moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause—
"Minimum charges.
. For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that Section one of the Solicitors Act 1933 (which requires the Council to make rules, subject to approval by the Master of the Rolls, as to the keeping of books of account and banking accounts and empowers them to make rules, subject to such approval as aforesaid for regulating in respect of any other matter the professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors) shall be deemed to empower and always to have empowered the Council, subject to such approval as aforesaid, and notwithstanding the provisions of Sections fifty-seven, fifty-nine and sixty of the principal Act, to make rules fixing or providing for the fixing, either generally or for particular areas, of scales of minimum charges to be made by solicitors not exceeding in respect of contentious business the charges prescribed by Rules of Court and in respect of non-contentious business the charges prescribed by orders under Section fifty-six of the principal Act and to make provision for securing the observance and preventing the evasion of such scales: Provided that any such rules shall not apply to any business which a solicitor, solely from charitable motives, undertakes to conduct free of charge, or to any business specially excepted by such rules."
The noble and learned Lord said: The new clause which I now move deals with what is called undercutting by solicitors and the object of the proposed new clause is to enable the Law Society—or to remove doubts that they have the power already—to specify minimum rates of charges made by solicitors. The Amendment speaks for itself. It is intended to meet what has been long felt to be a very serious evil among solicitors—namely, undue reduction in charges. In that way it has met with the approval of the great body of solicitors. A circular sent out to 17,000 solicitors elicited only 390 letters

859
objecting to it. I beg to move that the clause become part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Interpretation]:
LORD WRIGHT LORD WRIGHT moved to insert:
"The expressions 'trust' and 'trustee' extend to implied and constructive trusts and to cases where the trustee has a beneficial interest in the trust property, and to the duties incident to the office of a personal representative, and 'trustee', where the context admits, includes a personal representative."
The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment proposes the addition of a new definition of "trust" and "trustee," words which occur in the Bill but have not so far been denned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 13, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule [Provisions with regard to the formation, administration and application of the Compensation Fund and matters connected therewith]:
LORD WRIGHT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 17, after ("production") insert ("or delivery to any person appointed by the Council").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The next is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 18, after ("Council and") insert ("may").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The object of the next Amendment is to provide for a more extensive examination of documents and accounts than those of which the Council can at present claim inspection and delivery.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 18, after ("of all") insert ("deeds, wills, securities, papers").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The words in the next Amendment explain themselves. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 19, after ("documents") insert ("in the possession or control").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
("(2) If any person having possession or control of any such deeds, wills, securities, papers, books of account, records, vouchers or documents, refuses or fails forthwith after being required by the Council so to do to produce or deliver the same, or cause the same to be produced or delivered, in manner aforesaid, such person shall upon summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and the Council may apply to the High Court or a Judge thereof for an order and the Court or a Judge thereof may on such application make an order upon such person to produce or deliver the same or cause the same to be produced or delivered in manner aforesaid within such time as the Court or a Judge thereof may order.")—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The same words are here to be inserted for the same purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 30, after ("any such") insert ("deeds, wills, securities, papers").—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT: The next Amendment is to enable the Council, in the event of their having documents in their possession, to find out to whom they belong. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, at end insert—
("(6) If no application shall be made to a Judge of the High Court in accordance with the last preceding sub-paragraph or if the Judge to whom such an application is made shall direct that the deeds, wills, securities, papers, books of account, records, vouchers or other documents, shall remain in the custody or control of the Council, the Council may make inquiries to ascertain the person or persons to whom the same belong and may deal with the same in accordance with the directions of such person or persons."
"(7) In this paragraph the expression 'securities' means documents constituting or evidencing the title to any property.")—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT LORD WRIGHT moved to insert at the end of the Schedule:
"6. Every application to a Judge of the High Court in Chambers under sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule and every application to the High Court or a Judge thereof under sub- paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 or under paragraph 5 of this Schedule shall be made in such form and heard in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made from time to time by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice or (in the case of difference) of one of them."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to enable the Council to apply in certain cases to the High Court for an Order subject to Regulations to be made by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice or either of them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 14, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
4.18 p.m.
LORD WRIGHT: I beg to move that the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House.
Moved, That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House.—(Lord Wright.)
LORD ADDISON: I am sure we all feel that this Bill should commend itself to the House, because the noble and learned Lord is in charge of it, and anything of which he is in charge we should, I am sure, be disposed to receive sympathetically. It would, however, be interesting to be informed whether His Majesty's Government have any view on this Bill, which appears to be very popular with the legal profession—as is perhaps not surprising. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will tell us whether the Government have any views on this Bill, which seems, as far as one can understand it, to be very far-reaching.
4.19 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): On the Second Reading of the Bill I intervened and stated that although this Bill is, of course, put forward by a private member of the House and is desired by the Law Society, it has appeared to His Majesty's Government to be a Bill which should receive the support of the House and which
862
we hope will be passed into law. I made one exception, which concerned Clause 2. This clause would have provided that the amount of revenue received from solicitors as a condition of their being allowed to practise should be reduced in order to make some small contribution to the Fund, which they are engaged in raising amongst themselves. I objected to that, as being quite contrary to the sound principles of public finance. My noble and learned friend Lord Wright recognised the force of that criticism—he had already done so—and he has in the course of the proceedings of the Committee stage removed Clause 2 entirely from the Bill. That being so, I conceive it to be a very useful measure. It is an attempt by a most important body of professional men to secure more completely the examination of the accounts of any practising solicitor by periodic report by an accountant. At the same time, it is a proposal to institute a fund, provided by the solicitors themselves, in order that there may be, to the extent of that fund, an opportunity of compensating those who have the misfortune to lose their money through the defalcations of some undesirable member of the profession. I think that the effort which the general body of solicitors is making for this purpose is in every respect to be commended, and I hope that your Lordships will give your support to this measure until it reaches the Statute Book.
4.21 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: We are most obliged to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and we all remember his eloquent words on the Second Reading, which he has been good enough to repeat to-day; but what my noble friends and I are anxious to know is whether these far-reaching Amendments are agreed Amendments and have the approval of the Law Officers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if I misunderstood the position. I can reply by saying that my noble and learned friend showed me these proposed Amendments and we went through them together; and the view I formed was that they are Amendments which should be made in the Bill. I think that the Bill as now altered should still receive—if I may venture to offer that advice—the support of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE "DAILY WORKER"
4.23 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government if their attention has been called to an article which appeared in the Daily Worker of June 22, and whether any action has been, or will be taken with regard to this newspaper. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will perhaps be remembered that I raised this subject two or three weeks ago, and I received the stereotyped answer from my noble friend that the question would be carefully considered and that if the newspaper transgressed in any way, attention would be given to the matter. I do not myself study the Daily Worker consistently, but I gathered information about this particular article from my noble friend Lord Elibank. It came to my notice only a day or two ago, and that accounts for the delay in my bringing the matter forward. As everyone knows, the Daily Worker is the organ of the Communist Party, and its great mission—I do not know whether self-imposed or not—is to foment the class war. The particular article to which I desire to call attention is one of the usual type; it is extremely vituperative, and full of all kinds of charges against the Government. The Government are accused of being composed largely of Fascists; they are accused of being influenced and stimulated by profiteers and financiers; they are said to be engaged in ruining the lower classes and in conducting the country straight to ruin; and it is stated that the only thing to do is to turn them out as quickly as possible. It is also suggested in the article that the so-called "officer class" should be abolished and that the factory workers should be provided with arms. If this happy state of things is brought about, then the so-called "People's Government" will enter into negotiations with the democracy of Germany, and peace will at once result.
I should like to remark that if this surprising event did occur, and if a new Government were formed with, shall I say, the noble Lord opposite, Lord Marley, or Sir Stafford Cripps at the head of it, does anyone really suppose that it would have any effect upon the war? There is an extraordinary delusion in people's minds, fostered by our propagandists, that we are fighting this war solely on behalf of democratic institutions,
864
and that Hitler is naturally at war with us for that reason. It may surprise the noble Lord opposite, but I maintain that Hitler is no enemy to democratic principles. His Government is founded upon the model of the Soviet Government, which excites the admiration of many people in this country who belong to the Socialist Party.
LORD ADDISON: No, no.
LORD NEWTON: He has copied this model so well that now his Government is almost indistinguishable from the Soviet Government. Any one who has gone to both countries, as I have done, must have realised that there is almost no difference between the two systems; the only difference that I can discover is that whereas the Jews are persecuted in the most inhuman way under the Nazi Government, in the Soviet Government they enjoy considerable influence and some of them are members of the Government itself. Democracy, however, has nothing to do with the question at all. We are not fighting the battle of democratic institutions, although one might suppose so from some of the propaganda which is produced. What we are fighting for is our existence as a nation. We are fighting for our lives and for everything that we possess, in view of the unprovoked attack which has been made upon us. There are, at this moment, three men whom I should describe as international bandits—Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Their object is not to attack democracy; their object is to take possession of all the small countries in their neighbourhood and to hold them down as slaves, in the same way as in the cases of Czecho-Slovakia and Poland. That is what Hitler is contemplating so far as we are concerned. The painful part of the whole business is that these three men have been extraordinarily successful—probably far more successful than they expected. They have overrun almost the whole of Europe. They have been uniformly victorious. They hold the European coastline from the North Cape right down to Spain, and they are in an almost impregnable position. I may add that their diplomatic successes have been no less great than their military successes. The result is that this country is in the most perilous position in which it has ever been, and no one can contemplate the future without the deepest anxiety.
The only consolation that I can find is the attitude of the nation itself. It is

865
quite plain that the British nation is not going to be deterred by fear; it is going on steadfastly with its work. Although they have at present the whole of Europe against them, our people are not going to be daunted in defending their lives, their property and their institutions. I have nothing but admiration for the attitude of the vast majority of the British public at this moment. The only people who are taking no part in helping the Government in the struggle at the present moment are those who are represented by papers like the Daily Worker. I have the highest admiration, as I say, for the attitude of our people at this moment, and I would add that it is at these moments of crisis and danger that the British nation shows to the best advantage—to far better advantage than in times of prosperity.
Whilst I admire the tremendous effort that is being made by this country, in view of the terrific odds against it, there are certain features which I feel are open to criticism. We are also engaged in what I would term a subsidiary campaign against what is known as the "Fifth Column." Can there be any more ridiculous designation than "Fifth Columnist"? If it means anything at all, it means a person who contributes a fifth column to a newspaper; and the journalistic profession might almost be inclined to regard it as an insult. This campaign presents certain features which I certainly do not feel enthusiastic about. There is, for instance, a tremendous drive going on for the purpose of interning aliens, and a noble Lord on this side, if I am not mistaken, wants to intern every alien in the country, or at least every alien of enemy birth. I do not know whether he is present here this afternoon, but he would perhaps be surprised to hear me say—and I am not speaking without experience—that I look upon the wholesale internment of alien civilians as a huge and stupid mistake unworthy of a civilised Government.
Of course one recognises perfectly well that in time of war enemy aliens have to be interned, but what I object to, and shall always object to as long as I am able to speak at all, is that there is a complete absence of discrimination in the matter. I am not like one or two noble Lords—perhaps there are more—who look upon Germans and Austrians as
866
national enemies because they are Germans and Austrians. I quite recognise that the majority of them are hostile to us, but on the other hand there are considerable numbers of both Germans and Austrians in this country who are even more bitterly opposed to the present German Government than we are, and I maintain that it is absurd folly to intern these people, who might be of considerable use to us, and who, although perfectly innocent, have to undergo a very hard time.
I have heard that Sir John Anderson the other day announced that he was going to exercise further discrimination and alleviate the position of aliens to some extent, but I cannot see any evidence of it. On the contrary, it seems to me the Regulations affecting these unfortunate people are going to be more stringent. The civilian enemy alien up till recently was entitled to receive a visit from a friend, but now he is not allowed to see anybody at all except his solicitor or next of kin. I happen to know an unfortunate alien, a man who has worked hard for this country and who was recently employed by one of the Government Departments, who was suddenly re-interned the other day, and this man has not got enough money to pay a solicitor and has no next of kin at all. You may say that is a rare case, but I am quite sure there are many in that position.
Anyhow, the fact remains that an enormous number of people have been interned who are perfectly innocent, and the Government know quite well that they are innocent; but the order goes out that all men of a certain age have to be interned. They are interned, and once they are interned it is with the utmost difficulty that they can be got out, even if they are completely innocent. At the present moment a number of people are interned who were interned at a previous period of the war and released because there was nothing whatever against them. Now they are interned again, and it is a matter of conjecture whether they will get out at all, because the number of aliens who are interned now is very large, and there is no system of examination which might lead to their liberation. It seems to me that the disadvantages of this system greatly outweigh the advantages.
Then there is the question of refugees. I find it very difficult myself—and I do not think I am more gullible than other

867
people—to believe that these people, who come here in order to avoid German tyranny and German brutality, are going to work in favour of the German Government. Of course there may be exceptions; no doubt there are, but I believe the vast bulk of these people have no desire to give any assistance at all to the present German Government, and many of them would be only too glad to work for us. It is said that there are spies among these refugees. There may be, but on the whole I am inclined to think that Hitler and Hitler's Government would not think it worth while to employ them. They are the sort of people who, I should think, would find it very difficult to obtain any information at all, at all events any information of any value, and Hitler has a source from which he can get as much information as he chooses without any trouble whatsoever. In Ireland there is a German Minister, with an enormous staff. It is open to any ill-disposed individual to go to Ireland; he has only to give the Minister this information and it goes straight to Berlin, and there is no chance of its being intercepted. The same thing applies to the Italians: they also have a Minister in Ireland, who no doubt is used in the same way. I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that long ago they concocted through the German Ministry in Dublin an elaborate plan for the invasion of the country should they think it necessary to do so.
So much for the interned aliens. Well now, a word with regard to the native—I refuse to call them Fifth Columnists; I will say common or garden traitors. What about them? It looks to me as if we were proceeding entirely on the wrong lines. I would have absolutely no mercy on traitors at all. I feel extremely indignant at the totally inadequate sentences passed on these men, especially when I compare them with the punishments inflicted on people who have committed offences simply through stupidity. And I should like to restrict the powers of these people to utilise legal methods of delay. I do not think they ought to be dealt with by an ordinary tribunal at all; I think any person who, with reasonable grounds, is suspected of active sedition ought to be brought before a Court-Martial; whereas there are a lot of people in this country who are so imbued with
868
the sanctity of human life and the safety of the individual that I am quite sure that if you caught a parachutist red-handed they would demand that he should be tried at enormous expense by the highest legal authorities in the country. All this sort of rubbish ought to come to an end, and anybody who is convicted of attempts against the Realm ought to be punished without mercy.
Then I come to another class of persons. At the present moment there is a great demand for the internment of one class or another, but the people who are being interned and harassed are the wrong people. In spite of what the Daily Worker says about the Government being under the domination of Fascists, Fascists seem to be especially selected for punishment. But, whether they are Fascists or not, I cannot believe that some of the people who, I hear, are being arrested are people who mean any mischief at all. I think they are probably people who in years past were anxious to arrive if possible at an arrangement with Germany. I do not mind owning that I was one of those people myself up to a certain time ago. I see no crime in that. If a man contemplated a possible arrangement with Germany before Munich I do not see any crime in that. I admit that he was mistaken. But then you might say, if you want to be logical, that there are plenty of people besides obscure Fascists in this country who ought to be dealt with. You might say, in view of what has happened, that British Ministers ought to be interned because they made a mistake with regard to Hitler; but fortunately we have not got as far as that.
But I cannot help thinking that the whole plan of waging war upon these people because it is vaguely supposed that they have had some communication with Germans or Germany years ago is a mistake, and there is no justification for arresting them now.
The point I am coming to is that, whereas we are very busy attacking these people, many of whom I believe to be perfectly harmless, the really dangerous people are left alone. The really dangerous people are those who sympathise with the Daily Worker and whom the Daily Worker supports. These are the people you want to go for, and I do not see much evidence of anything being

869
done about them. I only say, in conclusion, that it seems to me perfectly monstrous that a miserable rag like this should be allowed to appear, when its sole purpose is to discredit the Government and the efforts the Government are making in defence of this country. It is perfectly ludicrous, and almost impossible to explain. I can only explain it on the theory that the Minister responsible is afraid of somebody—afraid of the Press or something of that kind. I hope my noble friend will be able to give me a more satisfactory reply than I elicited the other day.
4.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I rise for a few minutes to support the question put on the Order Paper by my noble friend, and I shall try to confine my remarks to this question. It is about six weeks since I raised in your Lordships' House the general question of Fifth Columnist activities, and at that time I urged upon the Government that there were two papers—Action, for which the British Fascist Party was responsible, and the Daily Worker, for which the Communist Party was responsible—which were publishing articles and issuing things which were intended to undermine the morale of the people of this country, to undermine the efforts of the Government and, you might say, of the bulk of the population of this country in their attempts to arm and get ready for the great contest in front of us. About ten days elapsed, and a special Regulation was passed by the Home Office which gave it the fullest power to suppress any newspaper which undertook propaganda of that nature. Naturally, one supposed that a paper like the Daily Worker, a copy of which I have in my hand, and which, as I say—and I read a good many articles at the time—was pouring forth this poisonous stuff, would immediately be suppressed and put out of action. Nothing happened. As far as the newspaper Action is concerned, that I believe died a natural death owing to the arrest of the leader of the British Fascists, Sir Oswald Mosley. The Daily Worker, it is true, stopped issuing the same type of article, but there was, as usual, a great deal of insidious newspaper propaganda which could be read between the lines. It seemed to me that if the Home Secretary had this power, in view of all these articles that had gone before he
870
might have taken steps to suppress this paper.
As my noble friend said, the paper has again come out with a manifesto of the Communist Party in its issue of June 22 which is headed, "We Must Learn the Lesson of France—A New Government Must Come to Power," and then it proceeds to set out this manifesto. The manifesto is a long one, and my noble friend has already given a general account of it, but I should like to refer particularly to clause 4, which says, "Arm the workers in the factory." When we take that, with the heading in huge type, "We Must Learn the Lesson of France," it makes a great many of us in this country very nervous and very anxious as to what may happen. Why "Arm the workers"? We all know what happened in France. France has for a long time been riddled with Communism and, I might almost say, corrupt politics. Anyone will tell you in France—I have heard it over and over again in France, and I have heard it in this country from French people—that it is Communism which has undermined the morale of the people of France. It was Communism which caused the collapse of France in its military undertaking quite recently. If we are going to allow this sort of thing to go broadcast through our country, and do nothing to stop it, the consequences may be serious.
In another place a few days ago, on July 4, the Home Secretary said, with regard to leaflets containing this manifesto:
"There is no difficulty in dealing under the existing laws with people who are so misguided as to distribute these leaflets, but the manner and scale on which they have recently been distributed raised issues of a wider character, and these issues are now receiving the consideration which they undoubtedly deserve."
If the leaflets deserve consideration, how much more does this newspaper which goes into the hands of I do not know how many thousands of people every week, passed from hand to hand amongst the families of our working people. How much more necessary is it to deal with this paper and suppress it. I have personally no particular feeling against a Communist as a Communist if he likes to hold those opinions, any more than I have any feeling against a British Fascist quâ British Fascist if he likes to hold those opinions; but when both these sets

871
of people and both these sets of opinion are directed against the State, tend to undermine the State, and become a great danger to the State, then I, like thousands of other people in this country, have a great objection to either Party and feel that, at any rate, what they print and publish ought to be suppressed.
That is all I have got to say to-day. I want to support my noble friend in the question he has put, and I hope very sincerely that the Government and—I say quite deliberately—the Home Secretary will take matters like this very seriously in hand. I do not live in London the whole time. I am backwards and forwards between Scotland and other parts of the country and London, and I can assure your Lordships there is the greatest dissatisfaction all over the country with what I might call the slack administration of these matters. This is felt to be of the most serious import to-day.
4.51 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends considered this Motion yesterday when we saw it on the Order Paper, and decided not to say anything about it, but a remark has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, which, coming from your Lordships' House, might receive credence outside, and I think it needs correction at once. Lord Elibank said that the reason for the collapse in France was the Communist Party. I would point out to the noble Viscount that from the beginning of the war the French Government proceeded to suppress the Communist Party. I do not know how many Communist deputies were arrested, but I think they caught twenty or thirty. My noble friend Lord Cecil says more than that. They caught all they could lay hands on, and others were on the run. The surrender in France—and this is historic—was not made by the Communists; it was made by Marshal Pétain who is a Catholic Royalist, General Weygand, who is a Catholic Royalist, M. Laval, who has belonged to every Party in turn, but is certainly not a Communist. Your Lordships' House has to be dignified, and therefore I do not give my opinion of him, which I am sure all your Lordships share. In addition to those I have named
872
there was M. Marquet, Mayor of Bordeaux, a renegade Socialist, but not a Communist, and M. Baudouin, an international financier, a great friend of the Italian bankers, with great banking and financial interests in the Italian Colonies. Those were the people who made this disgraceful surrender in France. Those are the men who betrayed France.
We have no brief in my Party for Communists. We have had great trouble with them, and if the noble Viscount would talk to some of my trade unionist colleagues in the Party he would learn from them of the trouble they have had with Communists here. But they have dealt with them here without extreme measures. I do not take the Daily Worker and I have never seen it. I therefore do not know what it says, and I do not very much care. It does not represent the views of any of my friends. That is why we did not intend to intervene in this matter, but when the noble Viscount, from his position of authority as a Peer in your Lordships' House—he will forgive me if I put it this way—falsifies most recent history, I really think some correction is needed. It was not the working classes in France who failed, it was the men on the Right who represent big business. In the interests of harmony in your Lordships' House I do not propose to draw the moral.
4.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am sure after the statement just made by the noble Lord, although it is not in order to speak a second time, that you will allow me to reply to what he has said. I think that the noble Lord is not fully cognisant of the conditions in France before the war and of what actually happened. It is perfectly true that there were two phases. The first phase was the phase where the Army collapsed at a certain point in the defence owing to the morale being bad. Now that morale was undermined by the Communism which had spread through France to an enormous degree, and when the noble Lord says that French Communist deputies were arrested, and that there was no Communist left, surely as an old member of another place and as one who has sought the suffrages of the electors on a great many occasions, he is quite aware that you could not have 70 Communist deputies in the French Chamber of Deputies unless there were thousands of Communists in France who had elected them

873
to fill those seats in that Chamber. It was those who spread the doctrine through the country which, as is generally known, undermined the position.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: On a point of order. The noble Viscount has already made one speech; he cannot make a second speech on the same question.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have been attacked, and I beg of your Lordships to allow me one minute and I will then finish. The second phase was this, that those people referred to by the noble Lord—Marshal Pétain, M. Laval and the others—when they found Communism to the extent that I have described, went over to the other side in order to save from the Communists what possessions they happened to possess.
4.57 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I hope I may be excused if I do not join in the tilt which has just taken place with regard to the sad happening in France, but merely express a hope that some day, whatever the origin of what occurred, the true spirit of the people of France may once more emerge and our traditional friendship be restored. I should like to agree at once with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that whatever Government was in power in this country, even such a Government as is indicated in the article in the Daily Worker, it would make no difference whatever to our purpose, our determination and our decision to pursue this war until victory has been secured for our arms. Nor, I would like to add as my personal opinion, would any newspaper be able to sway public opinion from that purpose. I think that the points which have been raised latterly are not perhaps directly a consequence of the question that was put on the Paper, but I would like to say to my noble friend Lord Newton that we feel that not too much importance should be attached to the newspaper referred to. It has, after all, a very limited circulation, and it is, I am informed, experiencing considerable difficulties with its readers in expressing a policy which appears to change from day to day in accordance with the orders that it receives from the Communist Party in various countries of Europe.
874
At the same time His Majesty's Government, whilst with no intention whatever as far as possible of interfering with the liberty of the Press, as was made quite clear in the House of Commons last week, or with the traditional freedom of the Press, are determined to show that they feel a distinction must be drawn between legitimate criticism and propaganda such as is calculated to impede our war efforts by weakening the resolution of the people. Therefore, I think your Lordships will understand there are very good reasons why His Majesty's Government should keep, and are keeping, a very close watch upon the Daily Worker with a view to appropriate action should it prove necessary in the national interest to take such action.
The substance of the manifesto in the Daily Worker on June 22, which has been referred to to-day, has been reproduced, as has been stated, in leaflet form. Special attention has been given to the steps which are being taken for the distribution of these leaflets. There is a difference between the sale of a newspaper which people may desire to buy and the distribution of leaflets which are thrust upon unwilling recipients. In many cases the distribution of these leaflets has roused very strong natural resentment amongst the public. It is necessary therefore that appropriate action should be taken by the police which will prevent these misguided people from distributing such leaflets to unwilling recipients. Such conduct may in present circumstances lead to public disorder and to a breach of the peace and in such circumstances it is the duty of the police to take action under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1936.

ENEMY ALIENS.
5.2 p.m.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will follow the action of the Government of the Straits Settlements, who whilst realising that distress and inconvenience may possibly be caused to a certain number of innocent persons have decided to intern all enemy aliens, as they are not prepared to take any unnecessary risks in the

875
present state of world affairs, and whether, if for any reason they consider it undesirable to intern them in this country, they will take steps as soon as possible to arrest and ship them wherever they will constitute the least danger to the State.]
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, before the question is answered I should like to make a few observations upon it.
LORD MARCHWOOD: On a point of order I would mention that I starred this question because I thought it would be far better to have no debate on it. I understood that in your Lordships' House that is the right procedure.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am in your Lordships' hands, but I remember well in my own experience the contrary course being pursued. I put down a question which was starred, and I think it was Lord Novar who desired to make some observations upon it either before it was answered or after it was answered, on the ground that any question brought before the House may be debated by your Lordships. If any noble Lord puts down a question with a star in front of it the star indicates that he does not intend to make a speech. That is all it indicates. It was so decided in that case, which I remember very well because I was taken by surprise, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, has been taken by surprise, and I thought that there could be no debate.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will desire on all occasions to hear the noble Viscount, but I think a question is starred not only to indicate that the noble Lord who puts a question does not desire to make a speech but also that he does not desire to raise a debate. I am sure that you would not desire to prevent the noble Viscount making some observations in this case.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: In view of the indication given by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House any observations I make will be extremely brief, but I think it is desirable in a matter of such great importance that this question should not pass without any explanation.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that mean that the whole question is open to debate and that when the noble Viscount has finished his speech other noble Lords can speak?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think that must be dealt with when the question arises.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House?
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I think the proper course is for noble Lords to form their own opinion as to the best course to pursue. I have made my observations as to the purpose of starring a question. If the noble Viscount thinks it right to make a few observations I am not going to say that that is a reason why others should do so also.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: On a point of order I should like to mention that I happen to be the originator of starred questions in your Lordships' House. I asked particularly when I entered your Lordships' House whether it could be made a practice in future to star questions according to the custom which was in operation in another place. I was told that that would be done. Starred questions were then initiated and I certainly understood, and I think it was understood generally, that whatever was done in this connection in another place would be done in connection with starred questions here.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think, if I may say so, that that is a very hazardous conclusion to arrive at with respect to the proceedings of your Lordships' House. I do not want to say anything critical of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, but it is perfectly certain that he would not have been allowed to make in the other House the speech which he did make in your Lordships' House a short time ago.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House——
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether this means that in future it is useless putting down starred questions? It is an important point.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: You can make observations about a point of order without asking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Every Peer is entitled to make his own observations on matters of order.
LORD MARCHWOOD: May I say that I would rather like to have an answer from the Government before anything further is said.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Very well, and then I can make any observations that occur to me after the answer has been given.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, the policy of His Majesty's Government was fully explained by my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire in speeches which he made in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, on May 23 and June 12. The policy up to that date was individual examination and individual internment. Unfortunately, after the invasion of Holland and Belgium and the overthrow of France the danger of invasion of this country was greatly increased, and therefore on grounds of military necessity the Government have already accepted the principle of the internment of large categories of enemy aliens. Every effort is being made to send overseas to the Dominions as many civilian internees as the Dominions are willing to accept and for whom accommodation can be provided.
LORD MARCHWOOD: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am pat in a difficult position by the course which has been pursued. If there is a feeling in your Lordships' House that I ought not to speak I have not the slightest desire to impose myself on the attention of the House, but if there is no objection I should like to make a few observations because I feel, particularly after the answer that has been given by my noble friend, that there may be a misunderstanding as to what really is taking place. The noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, has recommended a perfectly definite policy—the internment of all aliens without any exception.
LORD MARCHWOOD: Enemy aliens.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Be it so. All enemy aliens without any
878
exception. That seems to me to be a dangerous and unjust policy and I should like very much to point out that the danger which affected other countries did not arise mainly from enemy aliens. Quisling in Norway was not an enemy alien; he was a Norwegian. The King of the Belgians was not an enemy alien. The men who have organised—in spite of my noble friend Viscount Elibank—the collapse of France are there, as I think it will turn out when all the facts are known, as the result of a very discreditable conspiracy.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I did not——
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am not going to give way to you.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I did not attribute the collapse in France——
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The collapse in France was due to the action of certain sections of the French people. After all, the very phrase "Fifth Column" of which we have heard so much was instituted during the siege of Madrid as indicating the number of Spaniards inside Madrid who were favourable to the people who were at that moment attacking Madrid. That is the danger. Therefore I do hope that we shall be very careful what we are doing about these unhappy refugees, these enemy aliens who are refugees in this country. Nothing has been proved; I have not seen a single proof yet that an enemy alien refugee has been guilty of treasonable action in this country. There may have been cases, but I have not seen any evidence of that at all. On the other hand, we have heard about the Daily Worker, and there have been other cases of persons quite at the opposite end of the political scale to the Daily Worker who have certainly been charged with treasonable action. If, therefore, the true diagnosis of the danger that we are in is that it does not arise from the action of enemy aliens, we must be very careful what remedy we apply to it. I have seen something of these refugees during all these years before the war began. They are men who have suffered and worked for the anti-Nazi cause, infinitely more than I have, and possibly even more than my noble friend Lord Marchwood has.
LORD MARCH WOOD: But not all of them.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am not making any charge against Lord Marchwood; I did not mean to make one; but nobody, however loyal, in this country has done or suffered half of what some of these men have done and suffered in their efforts to resist the Nazi tyranny. They come to this country, they are received, they are given work to do on behalf of this country, they are allowed to earn their living, they set up businesses which give a good deal of work not only to themselves but also to some of our fellow-countrymen. But then, owing to the very natural anxieties that are developed by the war, it is suddenly suggested that all these people, guilty or not guilty, are to be imprisoned—because internment, however softened it may be, is imprisonment. I cannot think that is a desirable course if it can possibly be avoided. It is the exact contrary to the ordinary principles of our criminal law. We say that nobody is guilty unless he is proved to be guilty; everyone is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty. My noble friend's suggestion is that not only should that principle be reversed and every enemy alien be presumed to be guilty unless he can prove himself innocent, but even if he can prove himself innocent he is still to be interned. That does not seem to me to be a right course to adopt, and I cannot think it would be in the interests of this country that it should be adopted.
What, then, should be done? I think the policy indicated by the Government is the right policy: each case should be considered and dealt with on its merits. If we shut up all these people we shall destroy their work and their home life, separate husband from wife, father from children, inflict very great hardships indeed.
LORD MARCHWOOD: Hardships have been inflicted on our own people.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: These men may be, and mostly are, profoundly anxious to see the destruction of the Nazis. This seems to me a very rash and dangerous course to pursue. We do
880
not wish to have even an approach to the Nazi doctrine that everything that the State says is right and that the only rule of morality is obedience to the State. That cannot be right, and I hope we shall not have it. I feel rather strongly about this, and that is my sole excuse for intervening. I feel rather strongly, not only from pity for these men—because they are very pitiable—but also because it is frightfully difficult to imagine that people of this kind could do any harm. They are, generally speaking, very poor; they have come without a penny to this country; they can, for the most part, speak the language with difficulty; and to suggest that they are going to be a great centre of danger to our Army, Navy and Air Force seems to me a very extravagant proposition. It is not only that. I believe profoundly—I will not enlarge on it, because there is shortly going to be a debate on foreign affairs, when it will be more appropriate—that one of the great assets, perhaps the greatest asset we have, is the belief in the honesty and justice of the Government of this country that is spread throughout the world. That is what makes so many people, particularly in America, come to our assistance and offer their sympathy for what we are doing. Do not let us cut down that immense asset for a fancied danger—because I believe that in the main it is a fancied danger, and the influence of war hysteria has driven so many people on so many occasions to grave acts of injustice. I might have developed this theme much longer, but I will not detain your Lordships further.
I should like to make only one other suggestion for the consideration of the Government. I think there is great confusion in the administration of the refugee problem. I cannot go into that matter now, but I ask the Government to consider whether they are quite satisfied that they have the best Ministerial machinery for dealing with it. Is it not time to have a separate Minister to deal with these questions, so that we shall not be driven, perhaps, first to the War Office, then to the Ministry of Home Security, and then to the Ministry of Labour before we can get any particular case dealt with? I hope that the Government will consider carefully whether something of that kind would not improve the administration of this question.

TREATMENT OF TRAITORS.
5.18 p.m.
LORD MARCH WOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question which stands in my name on the Paper.
[The Question was as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to shoot British subjects who are convicted of endeavouring to help the King's enemies.]
LORD CROFT: My Lords, there can be no doubt that a person "convicted of endeavouring to help the King's enemies" would come under cither the Treason Acts or the Treachery Act and would therefore be sentenced to death. He would be hanged and not shot unless he were tried by Court-Martial, which, as regards British subjects, would only be in the case of persons subject to Naval, Military or Air Force law. No doubt also in conditions of active military operations such persons would be dealt with more summarily.
LORD MARCHWOOD: I do not object to the method.
LORD CROFT: I know the noble Lord would not expect me to go into details, but perhaps it would be sufficient if I were to say that the views of His Majesty's Government on the proper treatment of traitors were fully explained in the course of the recent debates on the Treachery Bill, Section I of which provides that
"if, with intent to help the enemy, any person dot's, or attempts or conspires with any other person to do, any act which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede such operations of His Majesty's Forces, or to endanger life, he shall be guilty of felony and shall on conviction suffer death."
These debates received considerable publicity at the time, and it ought to be generally known that the penalty for treachery is death and that proceedings under that Act would unhesitatingly be taken against any offender. If this is not generally known throughout the country, then I can only hope that my noble friend's question will draw attention to that fact and will still more emphasize what has already passed in the previous debates.
5.20 p.m.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his answer. I am sure that it will give
882
great relief throughout the country to know the action which is being taken by His Majesty's Government in these matters.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

TRUCK BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill read 3a, and passed.

SAINT MARY MAGDALENE HOS PITAL (NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
5.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Viscount Caldecote.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from ("1867") to ("is") in line 15.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment, which has been agreed to in another place for the purpose of meeting a suggestion made by the Canadian Government. I should like to take the opportunity of correcting a mistake which I made on a former occasion, and to which my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin has called attention. I said that this Bill was in consequence of a decision of your Lordships' House; I should have said a

883
decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—an obvious slip which I have already taken steps to correct in the bound volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Caldecote.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:
884

Middlesex Deeds,

Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction,

British North America,

Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment,

Truck,

Christchurch Corporation,

Gosport Water,

Monmouthshire and South Wales Employers' Mutual Indemnity Society Limited,

Wey Valley Water,

Taunton Corporation,

Saint Mary Magdalene Hospital (Newcastle-upon-Tyne).

House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.