Lords Sitting of 31 July 1940

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Abertay to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Navy Services of the Select Committee appointed by that House on National Expenditure. Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he think fit; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

POULTON-LE-FYLDE GAS ORDER, 1940.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petitions have been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

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 Emergency Powers (Defence) (No. 2) Bill through all its remaining stages.—(Viscount Caldecote.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WAR PRODUCTION.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask His Majesty's Government how far plans for war production in this country have been modified by a policy of increased war production in the Dominion of Canada; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the words of the Motion standing in my name might give the im-
42
pression that it has already been covered by two replies made by Ministers in the last two weeks with regard to purchasing in the United States and Canada. That is by no means the case, and, if I may have the indulgence of your Lordships' House, I will attempt to explain why I say that. I should like first of all to admit that the two statements which were made, by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Woolton respectively, certainly covered the ground raised by the previous Motion in my name and by the subsequent Motion in the name of Lord Addison. It is my desire to acknowledge to the full the ground that was covered by those replies. That is really disposed of, and it merely remains to make sure that deliveries result from the great orders which have been placed so liberally, in accordance with the amount stated roughly since the beginning of June in Canada and in the United States of America. Deliveries are more important than the placing of orders. The Committee under Sir Arthur Salter, which has the aim of achieving coordination at this end and ensuring the proper passing forward of orders to the Munitions Board in the case of Canada and the Purchasing Board in the case of the United States, gives promise, under Sir Arthur's energetic and efficient leadership, of achieving the desired results.
The present Motion is much wider in its scope. I made reference to its terms in the debate in your Lordships' House on July II last, and since then I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with my noble friend the Leader of the House and with others. He listened sympathetically to the points which I made, and I am satisfied that he is fully aware of what I wish to raise now and of its complete separation from the other points which were dealt with earlier. I have also had the privilege of a conversation with Mr. Arthur Greenwood and Sir Arthur Salter, and I appreciate their readiness to admit that this matter is one which justifies review. Since then I have had the opportunity of a talk with Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Minister of Supply, and he is fully alive to the fact that the scope of this Motion is much wider than anything which could be dealt with by the Ministry of Supply in particular or by the Admiralty or by the Ministry for Aircraft Production; indeed, it raises a matter of Cabinet policy, and is therefore

43
necessarily above the activities of any one particular Department. With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I shall endeavour to outline briefly what precisely it is that I now raise.
I must admit that to some extent since I put this Motion down on the Paper it has been answered by the speeches which we read in The Times to-day and which were made in the House of Commons at Ottawa by Colonel Ralston, Major Power and Mr. Howe. I had in relatively recent weeks the opportunity of discussing this question with all three of them, and I know exactly what their reaction was to the general theme. In addition, I have had the assurance of Mr. Morrison that the industrial capacity of both this country and Canada is required to the full; and therefore, under present conditions, the point which I now raise is directed more to the future. It is that in recent months it has been decided that the industrial production to meet the requirements of the Fighting Forces calls for the establishment of several new factories, factories which might be of a character which involve production new to this country—and there are some of that kind—or merely units to supplement factories already established and operating in this country.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the curious change which has taken place in the situation. Until a year ago, it was the industrial policy of this country that, as and when extension of factories was planned, they should as far as possible be put in the western part of Great Britain. That involved all kinds of problems of a social character, such as that of housing accommodation, as well as many others which your Lordships will readily appreciate. It also involved power requirements of a character which meant that demands were appreciably increased in areas which were understood to have been hitherto relatively sparsely provided for, or at least the demand in the past had been relatively moderate compared with the demand for the east and south centre of England. That meant the consideration of a whole host of problems in connection with the establishment of these new factories. The decision to establish them made all sorts of new demands, which might have been modified, or at least avoided, by the
44
location of the factories in other parts of Great Britain.
During that period, industrial employment in Canada was much below capacity, and it would be admitted now that the former policy of deliberately choosing sites in the extreme western part of the country would not have been decided on had we then had the knowledge which we have now. That brings me to the point that I wish emphatically to make, that instead, of anchoring this large amount of capital to the soil of England it might have been anchored to the soil of Canada, where it would still be under the British flag. I advance that theory on the assumption of full co-operation by the Dominion Government, and in so far as I have been able to discuss that with members of the Government in Ottawa or with Mr. Massey in London, there is reason to suppose that it would be looked upon favourably by the Dominion Government, and they would give facilities to make this co-operation possible, involving many financial considerations which I know were very present in the early part of the war—they have assumed a different aspect now—and also questions of personnel.
This raises the question of immigration into Canada. We know that industrial plants in Canada have been unemployed or subnormally employed. There was also the opportunity of drawing from south of the line. But if Canadian facilities were developed on the scale that I envisage that would involve an appreciable inflow of working population into Canada. I will return to that in a few minutes. I would here interpose that I realise that danger from destruction from the air must be regarded as a possibility involving greater apprehension than anxiety about shipping communications on the North Atlantic lane. While it is right that we should assume that, owing to our capacity for defence, attack from the air will not result in the devastation which some people think, at least one must admit that the Government policy, as evidenced by the preparations that have been made, envisages that as a possibility. That has to be set against the danger of not being able to keep open the lane of communication with Canada.
It therefore becomes a delicate balance of uncertainty between the danger of

45
destruction from the air if the plants are here and the risk of interference with sea transport to Canada and the difficulties of tonnage. But while great destruction from the air would not in any way diminish the determination to carry on here for an indefinite time, the closing of the lane between the North American Continent and this country would at least compel a review of the whole position. Therefore it seems that the latter danger is the smaller risk of the two. I realise that this may well involve questions of Imperial economy and Imperial strategy, and it may well be that the reply which my noble friend will be able to give will be definitely reserved, and he will properly take advantage of the disinclination to say anything which might be embarrassing. I am also conscious of the fact that one is not justified in raising these debates in these days unless they have a definite purpose, because they involve much time in the Government Departments concerned in examining the sort of answer that can be made.
On the question of immigration into Canada, to which I referred just now, naturally no one is more sympathetic with that than the noble Viscount who is to reply. The office which he holds has brought him into familiar contact with the problems, through his presidency of the Overseas Settlement Board. I merely throw out the thought that it might appeal either to the United Kingdom Government or the Canadian Government that technicians at least should be drawn from the Allied Forces in this country of various rationalities, and they would cost the United Kingdom Government less if set to work on munitions in Canada than if maintained here as members of fighting units. I do not need to remind your Lordships that when discussing the expansion of industry in Canada we should remember that the present population of Canada, 11,000,000, is insufficient for the existing railway plant and many other services in Canada. Based upon an optimistic view of expansion, these have far outrun the current requirements of the existing population. Therefore to whatever extent this country should assist the development of industry in Canada, as a part of the assets of the Empire, we should be helping ourselves as well as them.
I know it will be suggested that there is already invested in the industrial development of Canada a very large amount of American capital, and that the effect of the proposal that I make would bring in more American capital. Well, Canada is Canada, and the evidence of patriotism that we have had since the beginning of the war relieves any anxiety as to the character of the capital which provides employment for the population of Canada. It is regrettable that so relatively large a part of Canada's industry has been financed from the United States, and I can make this comment here from practical experience in industry, that there has been a discouragement of investment in Canada on the part of the banking community of this country. To industrialists they replied, "Well, you had better not risk putting your capital in Canada; they are small men with small minds, occupying big positions" Many of those gentlemen, though at the head of big financial institutions, have never been to the United States or Canada, incredible as it may seem, and they are without the vision that should have inspired them as the custodians of the capital of this country.
I was interested to read the other day that 65 per cent, of the total coal deposits of the world are in the Dominion of Canada, and yet Canada imports 25 per cent, of her coal requirements. I recognise the geographical distribution of these deposits, yet it is an interesting thing when we consider that Canada should have a larger population than it now has. The question of new factories there raises the manner of aircraft production. I referred to that on July 11. Since then I have had conversations in various directions and have not got any satisfactory explanation as to why the establishment of factories, even though by American capital, to produce American prototypes in Canada, from October onwards, was rejected; but that is now past. On the aircraft side to-day I am satisfied that, in the hands of Lord Beaverbrook, the interests of Canada will not be overlooked, but will be happily married to the interests of this country.
Let us take the iron ore imports into this country. It has been a matter of surprise why so little use was made until recently of the valuable deposits in New-foundland. Surely they could have been

47
married to the coal deposits in Nova Scotia and used for the advancement of manufacture? Again, there are considerations of which I am not in a position to know the facts, but one hears talk of aluminium production here which involves the use of 7½ tons of bauxite to produce one ton of aluminium. Why that should be produced in this country instead of in Canada is a matter of surprise. I know much has been done in Canada—for instance, some 42 per cent, of the nickel production is already owned by the United States. That raises the question as to the position of the deposits in New Caledonia and the use that is going to be made of them for Empire requirements.
I cannot pass over the question of Canada's war effort because I have heard on many sides criticism of that war effort. There is no point in recrimination or in reviewing the past except, as the Prime Minister said, with the object of fortifying us in our determination for the future. Comparisons are odious in so far as they are made with other parts of the Empire, but it is certain that had the United Kingdom followed the policy of making a greater call, at an earlier date, on Canada's productive capacity, it would have been answered and it would have inspired the Canadian people and impelled the Canadian Government to make efforts on their own part much greater than they did instead of being lulled into an appearance of inaction by the meagre demands which this country made upon them. At the present moment the presence here of Mr. Charles Banks, representing the Canadian Munitions Board, ensures that these problems will be properly surveyed, and I know that with Mr. J. P. Bickell here assisting Lord Beaverbrook, these factors will be continually put forward. I expect that the infusing of the vigorous methods practised in Canada into our governmental machine will produce some electrifying effects even on the Civil Service, to which Lord Strabolgi addressed, and rightly addressed, a considerable homily recently in your Lordships' House.
I have had occasion to talk this over with my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. I realise that, very properly, he has misgivings as to what this may suggest in
48
the ultimate impact upon exports from this country. It is very right that that should be raised, but let us keep in mind the main view. The main view is to win the war, regardless of what the sacrifice may be. While in order to secure, we will say, Canada's war effort, there may be a call for the establishment of branch factories in Canada, which would diminish the likelihood of exports from this country, that may be envisaged as an inconvenience arising from the war. It is no more a menace to industry in this country than the restrictions which His Majesty's Government have, quite rightly, seen fit to impose on domestic trade, with their disastrous reaction on the retail trade of the country. That in itself is disquieting enough, because it must "damp back" right down the line of domestic production here. Where the security of Canada, for instance, is concerned—and I have discussed this very intimately with Mr. Charles Banks—he agrees that the sacrifices that may appear to be made by the United Kingdom in agreeing to such a policy are inescapable at the present moment. I advance this thought to your Lordships. As the result of the last war and subsequent events, an immense stimulus was given to Australia in all kinds of industrial production. The curious thing is that it has not diminished the imports into Australia from this country; it has merely changed their character. I admit that the economy of Australia is somewhat different from that of Canada, because of the proximity of Canada to the United States.
I pass to another point which I wish to emphasize. If that theory be a correct one, that we have to attach more importance, or dominant importance, to keeping open the North American channel, then that involves all sorts of problems of a maritime character, including the naval factor. That must mean that if Canada is in the position of our second line of industrial defence, it involves that the marine power of the United Kingdom and its Mercantile Marine require some additional bases on the Atlantic seaboard. They must be on the Nova Scotian coast because in winter, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to the American border is the only part they can turn to. I am informed by those

49
in the Mercantile Marine who are qualified to speak that up till now very little has been done in expanding the facilities of any port on the Atlantic seaboard. There are many ports suitable for development. Halifax, in the case of ship repairing, has not been developed. In the case of Newfoundland, practically no money has been spent on St. John's harbour, and that might be of very great assistance if it were utilised for different purposes. I suggest that the evidence of our planning to make more use of our ports in the North American Continent must have a considerable effect on sentiment and outlook, which are drifting so happily in the right direction south of the line. The shipbuilding effort, great as it is already in Canada, is an additional evidence of this. It all leads towards the conviction that it is the English-speaking peoples who have the mission of concluding this matter, and therefore, whatever may be the requirements, the decision to use more fully Canada's possibilities strengthens the force of that view.
It means that a long war—and that is what we are told we have to provide for—justifies the review at once of this question, and it must be, as I have said, a Cabinet question. I might take up some of your Lordships' time in trying to present a vigorous picture of the possibilities of Canada, but I feel that that is unnecessary at this moment. I am encouraged in that view because I feel there is a growing realisation everywhere of what the Empire does mean, and what its effort amounts to as a contribution and an addition to our national effort. I put this thought forward to my noble friend the Leader of the House, that there might be an advantage in still further action to make the public in this country Empire-minded, and enable people here to realise to the full how great is the value of the support we are getting and going to get from Canada.
I conclude with this happy reflection, that in raising a matter in your Lordships' House so vitally affecting Canada it is natural that the reply should come from the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who is in most intimate touch with this question. I have had the good fortune to become familiar with his keen sympathy in all matters of this character, and I anticipate a considerate reply from him to what I
50
have said. I would repeat that in raising the matter at this moment I am fully conscious that it is one which has to be dealt with with some reserve. Nevertheless I feel it is one that should be in the minds of those in responsible quarters—namely, the Committee of Production and those responsible for our Imperial financial policy and strategy. No angle which has any bearing on it should be overlooked in the present war effort. I beg to move for Papers.
4.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, you will be aware that my noble friend Lord Woolton has been good enough to undertake as a rule the responsibility of replying when questions affecting the Ministry of Supply are raised in your Lordships' House. My noble friend is unable to be here to-day owing to an already once-postponed meeting of Ministers which he is now attending. As my noble friend Lord Barnby has suggested, it is not inappropriate that the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs should be allowed to say some words upon this Motion inasmuch as the resources of the Dominion of Canada are so closely in question. A fortnight ago my noble friend Lord Woolton made statements which I think I am right in saying reassured opinion in all parts of your Lordships' House. He dealt with a number of detail questions such as the supply organisation in North America, the responsibility of our representatives for settling prices, the stability of design and other detailed matters, but more particularly and most important of all was what he said in relation to the volume of orders which are now being placed in America.
The answer which he was able to give was that orders are now being placed to full capacity in the United States of America and Canada; and I repeat that the very fullest use is now being made of every possible capacity that there is in Canada, whether it is existing capacity or capacity that must be created, that can come into production before January, 1942. A very large part of these orders is for specialised munitions requirements; the orders involve a capital outlay of an enormous volume upon new plant and premises, or upon adaptation of plant or machinery. Reference was made in that debate, I think by my noble friend Lord Barnby, to what Lord Beaverbrook had said in the debate on July 11, that there

51
was no limit except the sky to the volume of orders which he was placing, and a question was asked as to whether the same was in substance true of other forms of munition. The answer is that, although the graphic phrase used by my noble friend would not be applicable, in substance the position is precisely the same. It is true that at one time perhaps until recently the duty of husbanding our financial resources imposed upon the Ministry possibly rather more prudence than vision, but that time has now passed. Your Lordships accepted with relief the declaration that any hesitation on the ground of expense is now at an end. At the same time I think it is right to remind your Lordships that this forward policy adds enormously to the heavy burden that is bound to be placed upon our gold and foreign exchange resources.
However, I do not propose to go over the ground which was covered in the debate on July 18. My noble friends rather invited me to discuss some detailed matters, such as the production of aluminium and bauxite. I am glad to say there is no scarcity of bauxite. I do not propose to go into the details which my noble friend quite properly has mentioned in his speech but to try and answer the questions raised by my noble friend in his Motion. He asked how far plans for war production in this country have been modified by a policy of increased war production in the Dominion of Canada. My noble friend would be dismayed if I were to reply to him that in consequence of increased war production in the Dominion of Canada the rate of production at home is slackening, but the fact is that we want a policy of production not by way of substitution of what is being done in this country but by way of addition to what is already being done.
My noble friend referred to the policy undoubtedly followed in general of placing our new establishments in the western counties of the United Kingdom. He rather suggested that if Canada's case had been more considered we should not have adopted that policy. I doubt whether that is sound. I think prudence would in any case have suggested that we should place our facilities away from the east coast. I do not think anybody can be unaware of the danger from the air which every establishment in this country has
52
to face. The duty and the care of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook and of my right honourable friend Mr. Morrison are to see that adequate defences are provided against those risks. I am happy to say that the measures which are required by Statute in some cases are now substantially completed and, although an addition will be made to the active defence of munitions production, my noble friend need be under no doubt at all that the importance of both passive and active defence is well recognised.
My noble friend's contention is that because we are developing our sources of supply in Canada, we should hasten the process by transferring men, machines and material across the Atlantic, instead of using those resources to the best advantage in this country. I cannot believe that that would be a policy which your Lordships would approve. Canada can certainly provide an offset to any losses that may be incurred by the destruction of our resources. It is by way of insurance, to look at it from one point of view, that Canada's supply is particularly valuable. It is not only in Canada that we are looking for additions to our own capacity. The expansion of our resources east of Suez has, for some time, been proceeding and just about this time a conference is about to take place between representatives of the three Dominions—South Africa, Australia and New Zealand—and of the Colonial Governments in that part of the world, to survey the existing arrangements, partly for the very reason to which my noble friend called attention, that it is desirable that we should develop as many sources of supply as possible by way of insurance against, or of an offset to, the losses that may possibly be suffered as a result of enemy air action.
It is important, as I say, not to think that provision of the kind I have described is a substitute for what is being done in this country. The enormous output which is now taking place under the direction of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, and of the Minister of Supply and the First Lord of the Admiralty, has heartened everybody's spirit. I can imagine, however, nothing more encouraging to the enemy than to know that our hearts had become so faint that we had relaxed our efforts in this country and transferred them across the Atlantic; nor, on the other hand, can I imagine anything more discouraging to the enemy than to know

53
that from these secure countries a steady and increasing flow of supplies of all sorts—aircraft, guns, munitions—is coming to this country and that they cannot stop it or divert it, that their Sisyphean labours in attempting to stop it may exhaust themselves but cannot exhaust or even imperil our resources as long as we retain command of the seas.
The plain and short answer to my noble friend is that His Majesty's Government have every intention of availing themselves of all that Canada can provide and at the same time of using to the utmost the resources of this country. The task of harnessing some of Canada's resources is enormous. It is a task which Mr. Howe, the Canadian Minister of Munitions and Supply, has willingly accepted, and I may say that if Mr. Howe thinks that at present orders are not sufficient to keep his capacity working as it is with two or three shifts daily, he only has to tell us and further orders no doubt would be gladly placed to take advantage of the energy and equipment of his country. In fact there is no limit to the orders to be placed in Canada except capacity. Perhaps I may illustrate what I think, with all respect to the noble Lord, is the un-wisdom of the suggestion to treat Canada as a substitute by considering the proposal in reference to ships produced by the Admiralty. The long-term programme of the Admiralty is familiar to everyone, but that production is a long process involving years of preparation. You have to establish the organisation, provide shipyards, secure and collect equipment, and then start building a ship which may take three or four years to build. My noble friend would not suggest that we should abandon the great organisation for building ships which has grown up in this country and which is a traditional industry of this country and re-erect those establishments in Canada.
I venture to think that the same thing is precisely true, though not in so striking a form, with regard to establishments for producing the guns and even the small arms and the munitions which are needed in ever-increasing quantities. Everybody knows that the creation of capacity and production is not a matter of a year and still less of a few months. Perhaps I have as much reason as any of your Lordships to know that the process of preparation is a slow and discouraging process. If it were represented in the form of a graph
54
one must expect to see production at a low level for a most disappointing period of time. Then it begins slowly to rise and it is only when the fruits of that labour are about to be reaped that the Minister or Ministers responsible can feel that their labours have been rewarded. I am sure that my noble friend opposite, Lord Addison, from his great experience will bear me out in that. If, in place of using our existing resources in this country to the full, we were to attempt to establish and develop new resources in Canada, we should be undoubtedly without the use of the men and materials which would be in course of transportation at a time when we are in need of those vital supplies.
I fully appreciate, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, the spirit of what he has said as to the development and the use of Canadian resources, but I really think that the action that has been taken by my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook and the Minister of Supply has reassured public opinion. The orders that have been placed in the month of July alone in Canada represent a very large increase, running into millions of pounds, over the whole of the orders placed for the preceding six months in Canada. That itself is indicative of the development of those resources. My noble friend quite truly said that it is one thing to place orders and another to obtain deliveries, but deliveries are on an equally ascending scale. There is no reason to believe that Canada will not be fully equal to implementing the contracts into which her industrial establishments have entered for the purpose of providing munitions. I well remember when the first order was placed in Canada that the supply of shells of a large calibre was most punctually and magnificently performed by a great Canadian undertaking, and it was a very great encouragement to all those who were then being pressed to develop still further those resources.
My noble friend said a word about ship repairing and shipbuilding facilities in Canada, if I did not misunderstand him. It would not be suitable for me to state whether or in what way those resources are being increased. But I have made inquiry from my right honourable friend the First Lord, and I am able to assure your Lordships that not only are the facilities in Canada at many

55
points being used for the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine, but attention will be given—as it is continually being given—to the possibility of extending them.
LORD BARNBY: And for ship repairing?
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: Mainly ship repairing, no doubt.
LORD BARNBY: I thought you said shipbuilding.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: No, mainly for ship repairing. Those resources have been used at many points and have been found valuable, and no doubt they will be extended.
The noble Lord said it had not been found possible, and I rather think he regretted it, to manufacture certain American types of aircraft in Canada. A proposal was made, I think by my noble friend himself, but it was thought that as Canadian labour was being trained for aircraft work and every available man was needed for that purpose who had any skill and capacity, it was better to develop along those lines instead of at this stage bringing in competing claims for labour from the United States of America, especially as the aircraft which would be produced by the proposed undertaking would be American types, and it is easier to buy these American types direct from America. That, I am informed, is in substance the answer that was given to my noble friend when he made this proposition. In conclusion, I hope that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that the Government by no means underrate the risk of damage and loss by enemy air action, nor do they underrate for a moment the valuable resources that exist in Canada. I am sure your Lordships would desire that His Majesty's Government should take the fullest advantage of the resources in both countries.
4.52 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I rise for a moment only to express sincere appreciation of the statement that has just been made by the noble Viscount. I was glad that he took the line he did as to the utilisation not only of Canadian but also of home resources. He will be aware that on more than one occasion in the last two or three years some of us have complained that arrangements were not being made
56
quickly enough to make the fullest use of our unsurpassed supplies of skilled labour. I welcome exceedingly the statement he has made that it is the intention of the Government to develop those capacities here to the utmost. That, clearly, is the first line of production, but it would not in any way diminish the necessity of making the fullest use, not only of the great Dominion of Canada, but also of the resources in our other Dominions and Colonies. I would thank the noble Viscount for his statement.
4.53 P.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Viscount for his considerate reply. I think he treated me very kindly. It was inevitable that in raising this question I should lay myself open to two charges: first, that I was raising something that had already been dealt with; secondly, that there was no need to raise it now. He rather emphasized points which would appear to demolish the necessity for raising it now. His statement has added to the very satisfactory statements that we have had before, and, like them, is very encouraging. I want, however, to emphasize what I tried to make plain in my opening remarks: that I regretted that the points raised in the previous discussion against the sufficiency of the current orders in Canada should be regarded as dealt with and disposed of. I wanted particularly to refer to future production and to make sure that, if it is decided that new factories are necessary, the appropriate Committee under the direction of the Cabinet should fully examine the possibility of establishing them in Canada before deciding to make further calls upon the industrial expansion in this country which might imperil current production. It was very encouraging to hear that the Government are availing themselves of all that Canada can produce. He hinted at a little misunderstanding: that I had proposed the transfer of men and machines wholesale—that is to say, dismounting them, interfering with production and transferring them to Canada. That was not my intention, and I was very properly corrected by him if I conveyed any such thought to your Lordships. Such a thought was indeed far from my mind: any such impression would have had a most unfortunate heartening effect on the enemy.

57
May I ask the indulgence of the House to make one point which I omitted to make in my previous remarks but which I would particularly stress to the noble Viscount? It is not particularly connected with this subject, but I think it will have the sympathy of your Lordships. The evacuation of young persons from this country is the subject of very proper scrutiny by His Majesty's Government. I should like to suggest that, if public funds are being involved in any way, attention should be given to an activity with which the noble Viscount is very familiar: the work of the Fair-bridge Farm Schools. Surely, in all this drive of people going overseas, we can take advantage of the current atmosphere and get funds in some way to utilise more the great advantages which those schools have offered. As your Lordships know, they have units scattered through the Empire and would benefit to-day from further impulse. I would again thank the noble Viscount for his consideration and his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) (No. 2) 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 agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to provide for trial of offences by special courts in certain areas.
(2) After paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section one of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) make provision for the apprehension and punishment of offenders and for their trial by such Courts, not being Courts Martial, and in accordance with such procedure as may be provided for by the Regulations, and for the proceedings of such Courts being subject to such review as may be so provided for;"
and in the said paragraph (a) the words "for the apprehension trial and punishment of persons offending against the Regulations and", are hereby repealed.
4.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON) moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (aa):
"so, however, that provision shall be made for such proceedings being reviewed by not less than three persons who hold or have held high judicial office, in all cases in which sentence of death is passed, and in such other circumstances as may be provided by the Regulations."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is on the Paper, and those of your Lordships who are following the matter will no doubt have seen its terms. In the Bill there is already a provision on page 2, line 15, that the Defence Regulations made in connection with the subject-matter shall be authorised to include
"provision for the apprehension and punishment of offenders and for their trial by such Courts, not being Courts Martial, and in accordance with such procedure as may be provided for by the Regulations, and for the proceedings of such Courts being subject to such review as may be so provided for."
The effect of that is that the Bill as it stands authorises the making of Regulations for the creation of a reviewing authority, but it does not on the face of the Bill say that there shall be such a reviewing authority. The matter was felt by the Government to be of such importance that we thought that it would be right to place upon the face of the Bill a provision that there shall be a reviewing authority; and consequently I am moving to add, at line 22, at the end of the words which I have just read, the following words:
"so, however, that provision shall be made for such proceedings being reviewed by not less than three persons who hold or have held high judicial office, in all cases in which sentence of death is passed, and in such other circumstances as may be provided by the Regulations."
I have not forgotten the suggestion made yesterday by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, and approved, I think, by others of your Lordships, that it may well be desirable that this review should extend as a matter of course not only to the case where the convicted person is sentenced to death but also to cases where the sentence is a serious and lengthy sentence of penal servitude. I am communicating with the Home Secretary on the subject, and I have no doubt that we shall be able to cast the Regulation in a way which is in accordance with

59
what I believe to be the wishes of your Lordships' House. I am moving this because I regard this matter as of fundamental importance. It is quite impossible, for reasons which I explained yesterday, that all the Regulations connected with this matter should themselves come one by one before Parliament to be approved; but I think that the statement which I made yesterday, and which was as clear and full as I could make it, has informed your Lordships thoroughly of what the scheme is. It is hardly necessary to say that such a statement is made with great deliberation on behalf of the Government as a whole, and if, indeed, there was any departure from it, I know very well that Parliament and your Lordships in this House would at once want to know the reason why. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, at end insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ADDISON: On behalf of my noble friend, who is not here to-day, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment, which meets the very important point which has been raised, that this reviewing machinery should be mandatory. There are two questions, however, which I should like to put. The cases to which it will apply are, as we have been told, those where persons are sentenced to death and such other cases "as may be provided by the Regulations," meaning in particular, I take it, long or severe sentences. It would be a comfort to some of us if the noble and learned Viscount could give us some indication of the character of the other cases which would be subject to review. If I remember aright, it was suggested—I cannot at the moment recall where—that the other cases for review should be those where the President of the Court which tried them recommended that there were circumstances of fact or law which should be taken into account and subjected to review; in other words, it was left entirely to the President of the special Court which is set up. I should like to ask, therefore, whether the Lord Chancellor can give us any further particulars of the character of the extension which is proposed.
Secondly, can he tell us how or in what form the Regulations will be made avail-
60
able for us to see? I quite understand that a Bill of this kind must be made applicable by Regulations, and of course those Regulations cannot be dealt with piecemeal; but it is desirable, I think, although it is not provided for in the Bill, that the House should have an opportunity of seeing these Regulations. Can we be told at what time it is likely that the Regulations will be laid before the House? In that case, I hope that we can if necessary raise any points for discussion concerning the Regulations as a whole, although I quite understand that they cannot be amended in detail. I should like some information as to how these Regulations are to be made available for your Lordships to see. I am quite sure that all the undertakings which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor gave will be met.
LORD MOTTISTONE: As I first made this suggestion in the debate yesterday, I desire to add my word of thanks to those expressed by Lord Addison for the concession made, that this power of review shall apply to terms of penal servitude as well as to the death penalty. There was another point made by Lord Atkin yesterday, but, as I am going to suggest a new clause in a moment, I will say no more now, but merely thank the Lord Chancellor for having met us in this way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been asked two questions. The first is as to the intended scope of the review of convictions and sentences. I think that your Lordships will generally approve the view that it should not be an automatic review of everything, because there will be cases which really do not call for review, cases where the man pleads guilty, cases where the position is so plain that there can be no sort of doubt. But sentence, of course, is quite another matter. The scheme is—and this is involved in what I am now moving—that in every case where sentence of death is imposed there shall be a review as a matter of course. I take note of the suggestion, and shall endeavour in arrangement with the Home Secretary to carry it out, that there should also be included an automatic review of cases in which the sentence, although not a sentence of death, is, as Lord Atkin said, a sentence which is almost as bad as that of death

61
—namely, a sentence of a prolonged term of penal servitude.
In addition to that, there may well be cases which, although they do not involve such heavy punishment, nevertheless do for one reason or another raise particular difficulties. There may be a difficulty on the facts, or there may possibly be a difficulty of a legal kind. I do not think that anyone can be better qualified to pick out those cases than the experienced High Court Judge who is trying them. It is, I think, not beyond the experience of Judges that sometimes a Judge says, "I shall be very glad if this case goes to the Court of Appeal" meaning that he feels that he would like to have the case reviewed. I believe that that sort of system, which I hope that I have now sufficiently explained, will really provide very adequately indeed for the review which we intend. It would be a grave error, I think, to make the review automatic in every case, for it would slow down proceedings and take away some of the value of the original jurisdiction when that jurisdiction is rightly applied, and when everybody recognises that it is rightly applied. That, I think, answers the first question.
I do not want there to be any misunderstanding between myself and the noble Lord about his second question. It is not practicable that these draft Regulations should be placed before both Houses of Parliament in order that they might then be discussed Regulation by Regulation, with, no doubt, many ingenious minds finding suggestions for putting this, that or the other slightly differently. Parliament passed the original Act, the Emergency Powers Act, precisely because these things could not be done by legislation in the ordinary way. What I will gladly do is to secure that as soon as the Regulations are ready and complete—naturally there are a few matters still to be adjusted—but as soon as those have been made under the Order in Council they shell be available on the Table of the House so that everyone may examine them, and of course, if necessary, put a question about them. There is a power to move in the two Houses to revoke the Order in Council, but it will really not be practicable—and I wish to say so quite plainly—to make arrangements for the Regulations to be reviewed one by one before the Act comes into force.
62
I give two reasons. The first is the practical reason that when we are at war, and when we may want this very machinery next week, it would indeed be a most dilatory proceeding to attempt to get the two Houses to agree to every single line of these Regulations, especially when a change in any one of them would mean that the whole thing would have to begin again and a new Order in Council to be got. The second reason is that it is quite inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill. The Bill is a Bill for dealing with "the extent of the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939" The powers of His Majesty under that Act are powers to make Regulations, and therefore we should merely be making the whole of this legislation quite futile if it were to be said that now that it is all done it is not to be a matter of exercising powers under the Emergency Powers Act, but the matter is to come again before the House. I must be quite firm about this, for I have not the slightest doubt that it is the practical view. I answer it now because the noble Lord put the question to me. Perhaps it may be regarded as more especially arising on an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of which he has given me notice, but I feel no doubt that the good sense and judgment of the Committee will see that what I have said is reasonable, and it was for that very reason that yesterday, perhaps at some great length, I trespassed on the attention of the House to make as full and as clear a statement as I could of exactly what the scheme in the Regulations would be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have had a manuscript Amendment handed in by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is in Clause 1, page 2, line 25, at the end to add:
"Regulations under this Act shall not become operative in law until they have been expressly approved by Motion in both Houses of Parliament"
5.13 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"Regulations under this Act shall not become operative in law until they have been expressly approved by Motion in both Houses of Parliament"
The noble Lord said: I had intended to move an Amendment of this kind, and in the interval I have received a letter from a man whose legal knowledge is regarded with the greatest respect by every member of this House, Lord Fairfield, who begged me to do so. The actual words of the Amendment are those which he suggested, with a small amendment of my own. I regard the matter as of the utmost importance. It is a legal question, on which I should be glad to have the Lord Chancellor's opinion, but I have reason to believe that Lord Fairfield himself, as well as the high legal authorities I have consulted, agree that the Amendment in this form would mean that the Government could still act on the Regulations in the emergency this Bill contemplates, but when they come before Parliament instead of the procedure proposed in the principal Act—namely, that
"If either House of Parliament, within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after such an Order in Council as aforesaid is laid before it, resolves that the Order be annulled, the Order shall thereupon cease to have effect except as respects things previously done or omitted to be done, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new Order"—
instead of that procedure passing sub silentio, people who care very deeply that the liberties of the subject should be infringed as little as possible, and that Parliament should have the right of review so far as it possibly can, are of opinion that I should move this Amendment.
We do not know what the Regulations are to be. It is a very big thing to ask either House of Parliament to approve of Regulations involving everything—life and death—without knowing what we are approving. I think the least we can say is that if it is accepted that the Government must have the power to propound Regulations under which they can act forthwith, when the time comes for those Regulations to be approved it shall be done by a Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown in both Houses, so that the country may fully understand what has been proposed and what has been acted upon. I beg of those who wish to preserve the substance of our rights, as I know all your Lordships do, as far as they can, to support this Amendment, for unless I am mistaken it would not interfere in the least with the Government's
64
powers to act to-morrow if this Bill becomes law, as it presumably will do in a few hours.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Will the noble Lord tell us on what authority he states that? I cannot think it is the authority of Lord Fairfield. But he is quite wrong. If his Amendment is carried the whole thing stops, and the result is that Martial Law will have to prevail.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I note that Lord Maugham is not in agreement with my noble friend Lord Fairfield or with myself.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Does the noble Lord say that Lord Fairfield suggested that if this Amendment was passed the Government would have power to make Regulations and to act upon them? because, with all respect, that seems to me preposterous.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I thought I was making this speech and not the ex-Lord Chancellor, and I have no doubt we shall listen with the utmost respect to the noble and learned Viscount when it comes to his turn. He asked me a question at some length, and twice over. I say the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfield, who unfortunately is ill, is undoubtedly that the Government shall have the power of swift action. I am going to make the necessary Amendments if Lord Maugham be right, but that is the intention, and that is what I ask this House to agree to. Nor do I propose to recede from it for one instant. If it be true that the actual words here mean that the power of the Government to act is withheld from them, I should at once move amending words to make my intention quite clear. But I know this House, which always wishes to act fairly in all respects, will wish to bring the simple matter to an issue: Shall the Regulations come before Parliament in the form laid down by the principal Act, which means that they lie on the Table for twenty-eight days and then become law, or shall the Government be compelled, as I suggest they should be, to make a substantive Motion in order to explain what they have done and why they have done it? I sent to the Lord Chancellor a full copy of all the documents concerned, as I always do, and when he speaks, if he says that the Amendment would have a contrary effect to that which Lord Fairfield wishes, I

65
will move an appropriate Amendment and we can decide the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("Regulations under this Act shall not become operative in law until they have been expressly approved by Motion in both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Mottistone.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and gallant friend was good enough to send me a copy of the letter to which he referred, and I have it before me. I am therefore in a position to assure your Lordships that so distinguished a lawyer as Lord Fairfield never for a moment suggested in his letter that the Amendment, which itself does follow his letter, could possibly have the effect that everything would operate forthwith, although, by the very language of the Amendment, nothing is to operate until the Regulations have been approved of by both Houses of Parliament. That of course is too plain for possible argument. I must say for my part—and I say it with great respect—that I rather regretted when my noble friend cited authorities rather vaguely which we are to understand give particular importance to his precise propositions. I thought I caught him saying he had consulted other legal authorities on this point. We must make the best use we can of such legal authorities as are here now available to advise the House. I shall do my best, and I see my noble friend Lord Atkin and my noble friend Lord Maugham are here. There is really not the slightest doubt about the matter, and I cannot understand anyone except perhaps a layman—who thinks the law is very complicated, whereas it only requires the application of clear sight to reasonably clear language—supposing that this Amendment would not wreck the Bill.
It is of the essence of the Bill, it is the meaning of the Bill, that we should declare what is the extent of these powers of Regulation. If my noble friend will look for a moment, he will see the Bill is called "An Act to remove doubts as to the extent of the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act" That is what the Bill is about. What are the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers Act? That is what it is. There are, and have been since the beginning of the war, a great number
66
of Defence Regulations made on a large variety of subjects, some of them very important indeed, and carried through by this procedure because it has been generally recognised—and the noble Lord would be among those who recognise it—that under the conditions of war, and the possibility of an emergency arising instantly, it is not possible to adopt a more dilatory procedure.
If the noble Lord really thought he could make this suggestion without producing delay, then of course he is excused. I cannot imagine that, if he of all men thought that what he was proposing might involve a delay of weeks or months, he would be the person to propose it. It was for that reason that I yesterday stated to the House in some detail what these proposals were. It was for that reason, I apprehend, that Lord Atkin, in his speech yesterday, said that there having been so full a statement of the scheme to be embodied in the Regulations, he, looking at it with the strictness of a lawyer, considered that we were well justified in proceeding in the way proposed. I have to tell your Lordships quite frankly that the introduction of such an Amendment as this into the Bill would not only make the whole form of the Bill quite absurd, but it would produce such delay and inconvenience is the Government could not take responsibility for.
LORD STRABOLGI: How much delay would be introduced?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would mean that in both Houses of Parliament there would have to be a debate on Regulations which cover, I should say at a guess, five or six pages of close print. The Regulations number more than twenty. There is not one where any ingenious and devoted mind might not suggest a possible change, either of phrase or substance. My noble friend said he did all this because of his devotion to the protection of the citizen and the rights of civil liberty. I hope he will do me the justice of recognising that I, too, have not shown myself unwilling to champion these causes. It would probably mean there would either be a difference of opinion between the two Houses, or you would have a change made in the Regulations which would result in its being necessary to do the whole thing over

67
again. I am not by any means confident that the enemy would be prepared to wait for that, or that the noble Lord would be prepared to guarantee we could get through this rather mature process without that risk following.
There is a provision in the law by which this matter can be revised, and that is the right method. The method is—and it applies to all Defence Regulations—that if either House of Parliament, within the next twenty-eight days on which the House has sat after an Order in Council has been laid—because these things are authorised by Order in Council—resolves that the Order be annulled, the Order shall thereupon cease to have effect. My noble, gallant, and learned friend was quite wrong when he said just now that the proposal in the Act was that the Resolution of either House of Parliament within twenty-eight days would have the result that the Defence Regulations would not begin until that period had passed. That is quite wrong. They begin the very moment the Order in Council is made.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I did not say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I misunderstood the noble Lord. At any rate, it is not so, and the reason is that urgency is the essence of the matter. I therefore address my appeal to my noble friend, and ask him to reflect that this matter has been considered by people who are as zealous for the protection of the subject as he can be. I showed yesterday how anxious I was to explain the whole scheme fully to the House, and that it had already, on that basis, been considered by the House of Commons subject to our returning the Bill, as I am glad we are going to do, with the most important Amendment which your Lordships agreed to put in just now. I hope in these circumstances we shall realise that when we are at a critical stage of the war we cannot adopt methods which would be very proper in times of peace, and that precautions have been taken—Parliamentary precautions and precautions for the publishing of the Order in Council and, if necessary, its revocation—which I trust in the circumstances your Lordships will regard as proper and adequate.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise only for the purpose of apologising to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for an interruption that he appears to have resented. My reason for interrupting him was simply this, that I felt quite sure that the noble Lord had misunderstood or misread something in the letter of my old friend Lord Justice Greer, as he was for many years, now Lord Fairfield, whom I know exceedingly well, and as to whom I felt perfectly certain he had not said the Amendment as it stands would, if carried, not in the least prevent the Government going on with these Regulations and putting them into force. It is for that reason that I interrupted, and if the noble Lord resents it, all I can say is that I am exceedingly sorry.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I hasten to clear that point up. The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has shown me too much charming courtesy on the Woolsack and at all times for me to expect any kind of apology from him. I am only too thankful for the kind words he has used. The particular Amendment I might move would be to say "shall be," which I think represents the views of Lord Fair-field, to whom Lord Maugham has referred in eulogy. The subsection would then read: "Such Regulations shall be expressly approved by Motion in both Houses of Parliament." That of course is a change in the Bill, but it is of a minor character. It allows the Government to proceed forthwith on what it is proposed to do, but it would mean that the proposals founded upon Regulations would have to be actually moved by the Government instead of their being passed if nobody raised any objection. I do not, however, mean to go so far as to carry this Amendment to a Division, because the Lord Chancellor has assured us of his great desire to safeguard everything. But I suggest, in deference to the opinion of my noble friend Lord Fairfield, as it is merely a question of method of procedure, that an Amendment should be adopted in the form I have now suggested. I will move it in that form if the Lord Chancellor likes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships will allow me to say a word about that I will do so. I thoroughly understand the motive in the suggestion that has been made, and I yield to nobody in the regard that I have for Lord

69
Fairfield, who, unfortunately, is prevented from being present at this sitting of the House for reasons of health. But I would say, knowing him as well as I do, I am satisfied that I could prove to him in five minutes that his fears are groundless. But I am not able to do that. I am only able to address his agent and emissary. I am afraid the latest proposal is no better than the first. I should have thought, if you are to say that these Regulations shall be expressly approved by Motion in both Houses of Parliament, the effect would be that until they had been so approved they would not be what we call in another connection "perfect" Regulations. The whole point is that they must be made and made effective at once. May I suggest to my noble friend, if he would like to finish this matter in the pleasantest way—as he has been good enough to say he would not propose to carry his proposal to a Division, naturally I will consider everything he has said—I should be glad if he can see his way, having made his point, to withdraw the Amendment so that we might get the remaining stages of the Bill this afternoon.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has something to say, but I will withdraw the Amendment if the noble Viscount wishes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord move any Amendment?
LORD MOTTISTONE: No, it is not worth while.
LORD STRABOLGI: On the Parliamentary point of which my noble friend the Lord Chancellor has far longer experience than I have—I nevertheless have some slight experience of it—with great respect I would say he has much exaggerated the effect of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone on the question of delay. He will forgive me pointing this out to him. This Bill, originally was going to be passed through the other place in one day, and there was a Motion on the Paper under which it was to be passed through your Lordships' House if we had agreed to it, also in one day. The whole thing was to be passed through like that, yet it has taken a fortnight to do it in spite of all the same arguments about urgency and imminent invasion of the country and all the rest of it. Now these Regulations—
70
twenty in number, the Lord Chancellor informed us—must be mostly in common form, if I may use that expression. Only one or two are likely to be controversial, and I doubt, in view of all that has passed, whether there would be much discussion. The whole thing could be done in one Parliamentary day, and as now we sit only three days a week we could sit one extra day to deal with it.
On the question of liberty of the subject, I make no apology for stressing this matter. The Lord Chancellor tells us that he and all the other members of the Government are most jealous for the liberty of the subject. It is just because of the little control there appears to be over the Executive that we have to take Parliamentary safeguards. I wonder if the Lord Chancellor is aware of the raids that are taking place on people's houses up and down the country—the houses of most respectable people. One of my honourable friends in another place who represents a rural constituency had raids by the police in his constituency on twenty-three respectable people whose houses were ransacked from top to bottom. In one case they read the love letters that had passed between two newly-married people before they were married. They went from attic to cellar searching every corner. Who were these people? Some were very well-known trade union organisers and members of the Labour Party, and I understand some were Communists. But leave out the Communists, about whom I know nothing; the others were very well-known people in the district, perfectly respectable and in all respects law-abiding. I am told that up and down the country there have been perhaps 100 or more of these searches.
The matter has been ventilated in another place. In some cases searches have been made of the houses of members of the Workers' Educational Association because they were members of that Association. This will interest my noble friend Lord Snell, who for years has been a great supporter of the Workers' Educational Association. He had better be careful what documents he has in his own dwelling place. They have searched the houses of members of the Workers' Educational Association and taken away their educational literature. They have removed a book by my noble friend Lord

71
Addison on agriculture. These works have been taken away by the police. Obviously it is a blunder, and is not the sort of thing that is intended. Now that I have drawn the Lord Chancellor's attention to it I hope, through the usual channels, he will have this nonsense stopped. But it shows how careful you have to be in war-time when people get panic-stricken and do things in excess of zeal without proper thought, though they are probably doing their best according to their lights as to what they consider their duty.
As a result of the raids on one of these houses some case might be concocted which would then be brought before one of these Emergency Courts. That is the only reason I have for making these remarks. I have mentioned these things to show how very careful we have to be in war-time when these pleas are made of emergency and haste and quick action. We have to be all the more careful to see what is actually being done. My noble friend Lord Mottistone is not going to press his Amendment, but I have made this protest from the Parliamentary point of view. If I may, with very great respect to the Lord Chancellor, I will say that I am afraid he has exaggerated the amount of delay that the Amendment would cause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say one more word? Whether there has
72
been exaggeration is, of course, a matter of opinion. I do not wish to exaggerate. It is a matter of judgment and estimate. I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble Lord—and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying so—in the feeling that in times of crisis there is a risk that sometimes action may be taken at the expense of quite innocent people in a way which would not happen if we were living in smoother and easier times. No doubt that is true. It may be to some extent inevitable, and I do not yield to him or anybody in the desire to see that more careful watch shall be kept, and, so far as may be, any cause for complaint prevented; but I can assure him and my noble friend and the whole House that there is nothing whatever in the draft Defence Regulations connected with this Bill which does anything of the kind.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I thank the Lord Chancellor for his very clear statement, and in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Amendment reported: Bill read 3ª, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.