Lords Sitting of 18 November 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Willingdon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE ADDRESS: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King, signed with his own hand:
" I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that the Committee of Selection be appointed.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Crewe,

E. Stanhope,

E. Lucan,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Plymouth,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Halifax,

V. Mersey,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Caldecote,

V. Maugham,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templemore,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Strathcona and Mount Royal,

30

L. Redesdale,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Addison.

—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Standing Orders Committee be appointed.
Moved, That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Crewe,

E. Leven and Melville,

E. Malmcsbury,

E. Stanhope,

E. Lucan,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Strafford,

V. Hutchinson(E. Donoughmore),

V. Mersey,

V. Ullswater,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Caldecote,

V. Maugham,

L. Clinton,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Ellenborough,

L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam),

L. Templemore,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Merthyr,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Askwith,

L. Carnock,

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston,

L. Jessel,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Milne,

L. Addison.

ߞ(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
All Petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My, Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders Committee be appointed.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D.Norfolk,

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Crewe,

E.Shrewsbury,

E. Stanhope,

E. Lucan,

E. Strafford,

E. Plymouth,

E. Iveagh,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Halifax,

V. Mersey,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Caldecote,

V. Maugham,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Faringdon,

L. Askwith,

L. Meston,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Denham,

L. Addison.

—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House of Lords Offices Committee he appointed.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D.Norfolk,

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Zetland,

M. Crewe,

E.Shaftesbury,

E. Dartmouth,

E. Stanhope,

E. Ilchester,

E. De La Warr,

E. Clarendon,

E. Lucan,

E. Bradford,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Strafford,

E. Ancaster,

E. Cromer,

E. Plymouth,

E. Iveagh,

E. Midleton,

E. Baldwin of Bewdley,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Halifax,

V. Allendale,

V. Mersey,

V. FitzAlan of Derwent,

V. Ullswater,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Caldecote,

V. Maugham,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Meston,

L. Jessel,

L. Aitkin,

L. Amuiree,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Macmillan,

L. Snell.

L. Moyne,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Addison.

—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

INDIA AND BURMA ORDERS COMMITTEE.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the India and Burma Orders Committee be appointed.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all drafts of Orders laid before Parliament under Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, or Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, in the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Devonshire.

M. Zetland,

V. Goschen,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Stanmore,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Hutchison of Montrose.

—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether alterations in the procedure of the House are advisable.
Moved That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether alterations in the procedure of this House are advisable in the existing circumstances, and, if so, whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered for that purpose, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Lucan,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Ullswater,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. Stanmore,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Addison.

—(Lord Templemore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE ON ESTATE BILLS.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the appointment of a Committee on Estate Bills and that the noble Lords mentioned on the Paper be named of that Committee.
Moved, That the Standing Committee on Estate Bills be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Hu chinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Ha sham,

V. Ma ugham,

L. R mer.

—(Lord Templemore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE: THE DUKE OF BEDFORD'S OPINIONS.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had given Notice that he would call attention to the reference made by a Minister of the Crown to the opinions and activities of the Duke of Bedford; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the interval which has elapsed since October 21, the date to which I intend to refer, has been occupied by a very brief Recess and by the necessary formalities for closing the last Session and opening the new Session of Parliament; otherwise I should have brought this matter to your Lordships' notice more promptly. On the date in question, October 21, a pronouncement was made in another place by a Minister of the Crown on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The particular matter which was being discussed was the refusal of permission to an honourable Member, the honourable Member for Shettleston [Mr. McGovern], to go to Ireland. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was chosen, as a very prominent Minister whose duties involved attention to such matters as these, to make a statement on behalf of the Government. In the Official Report I see that he occupied some twelve columns of his speech in preliminary matters, and then turned to the question in hand. He did not appear to be entirely comfortable.
Before he reached the point where he said "Finally, I come to the incident raised in the debate," he dragged in the name of the Duke of Bedford in a very

35
disparaging reference. It was a reference which was wholly irrelevant; so much so that Mr. Speaker intervened and said, "It would be better not to refer to members of another place." The Secretary of State for the Home Department seemed quite unaware of the bad taste—to put it mildly—of dragging incidentally somebody's name into the debate with insinuations—no charge—which, owing to their vagueness, were capable of very damaging interpretations, which were taken up in the less reputable columns of the Press. I am not going to enter into the opinions of the noble Duke. I have referred to the incident because it seemed to me to be an example of a very unjudicial attitude on the part of a person in a responsible position who has to exercise a judicial function. I am not, as I say, going to enter into the noble Duke's opinions; but I have been acquainted with him for many years, and I know him to be a high-minded, disinterested and absolutely sincere man, jealous of the good name of his country and intent upon her future welfare. He may not use the language—or the jargon, as I would call it—of hypocrisy which has so much popularity in these days, but I do not think that that ought to be made a charge against him.
In some ways it is much easier to defend a dustman than to stand up for a Duke, but Dukes have their rights as individuals, and they should not be made the target—because, of course, the publicity which they receive is exceptional—of unsubstantiated aspersions. I do not dwell on the point that technically speaking the noble Duke is not yet a member of your Lordships' House, as he has not yet taken the Oath. I understand that he was intending to do so after the more or less usual interval had elapsed since he became the successor to his father. The Home Secretary thought that he was a member of your Lordships' House, and therefore I am going to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House, or the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who I understand is going to reply, to give us some protection against this method of insinuation and attack in a covert way. I hope to hear that the Government dissociate themselves from this particularly undesirable method of pointing out people to the public without actually charging them.
There are others besides the noble Duke, even in your Lordships' House, who may be the subject of one of the Home Secretary's remarks; in fact, he said in the course of his speech "There are plenty of people in this country whom we keep under observation." I feel fairly sure that the Home Secretary has got me under observation, and I want to throw up a defence as early as I can, before I find myself in Brixton. The Home Secretary seems intent on putting the finishing touches to his Gestapo and getting it more on the Himmler model. I think there is sufficient opinion in this country to show a great dislike of methods of this sort. Lettres de cachet are all very well to get people into the Bastille by the hundred, but lettres de cachet, on the unrestricted discrimination of a single Minister, in these days will not find favour.
I do not want to enter into the technical point as to the powers that have been conferred on the Home Secretary or into the method that he has of using them, but the recent Appeal case in the House of Lords showed by the dissentient judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, that there is a very keen feeling that the liberties of individuals here, of all ranks and all descriptions, should be safeguarded, and that there should be some satisfactory acknowledgment that their case, whatever it may be, should be heard. I rather think that the Advisory Committees were instituted in order to guide the Home Secretary in his decisions, and I have here the last Paper on emergency powers, stating the number of cases that have been dealt with. I refer to it only in order to show that there were a good many cases—I think somewhere about a hundred—in which the Home Secretary completely disregarded the recommendations of the Advisory Committees. He is, I understand, legally quite justified in doing that, but it does show that this absolutely unfettered discretion is in itself a danger; and the very fact that people can be removed by a nod from the Home Secretary is a danger which I think we ought to deal with before it goes any further. At any rate there is a good deal of difference of opinion on these powers which have been accorded to the Home Secretary, and the matter is likely to come up for discussion, certainly in another place if not in your Lordships'

37
House, and I do not want to dwell on the technical point.
While there are differences of opinion about that, I have heard no difference of opinion at all on the undesirability of dragging in—the Home Secretary said that he felt himself on tempting ground when he mentioned the Duke of Bedford—dragging in somebody who, of course, was not present and could not answer and who, unfortunately, being a Duke, is subject to a great deal more publicity than other people; dragging in, one might almost say with a wink, insinuations of an undesirable character I think I am justified in hoping that that at any rate will not be tolerated again. The Home Secretary said that he was interested in the Duke of Bedford, and everybody pricked up his ears and thought, "This is a great opportunity, it will be quite a popular move to make out the Duke of Bedford is a traitor or ought to be put into prison." Well, if he is a traitor and ought to be put into prison and the lettre de cachet method is adopted, do it; but do not come and make a public speech and, with a sort of wink, say, "I know several of these people, and I have got my eye on them," and then mention them by name. I do not feel at all safe myself, I own. I am not at all sure that after the remarks I am going to make to your Lordships I shall not find at the door when I go out a Black Maria waiting for me.
My point is a narrow one, but I think it is really one that deserves consideration, because while he is within the law all the time—I do not say he is not—the particular method is a rather low-down one, which is not worthy of a Minister of the Crown. As to the very unfortunate opinion which I hold—I do not know to what extent it is considered to be treasonable—I think the Duke of Bedford holds it, and strangely enough, Mr. Morrison held it, and with far greater eloquence than I can command, he used to appear on platforms not many years ago as an upholder of the same opinion. I have an unalterable conviction that no nation whatever can gain a high or a good or a lastingly beneficial object by force and violence—force and violence ever extending, which to-day by wholesale massacre, by huge devastations, by famine, by bankruptcy and further ill; which we can only guess at, must undermine
38
and destroy the foundations of the very civilization which humanity has reached after many centuries. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment, but I must say that I think the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby is of vast importance, and I hope it will be so treated by the Government. I do feel a little anxious, I must say, about certain incidents that have recently taken place, as to whether, in exercising the very necessary powers which a Government must have during the war, full care is taken to preserve that supremacy of the law which is the real foundation of British liberties in this country. I should much welcome a very-precise statement from the Government that they recognize to the full the grave evils that accompany any arbitrary imprisonment—I say "arbitrary" not in a pejorative sense, but "arbitrary" in the sense of non-control by judicial authorities—and their absolute conviction that as soon as the emergency has passed all such powers will be abandoned once and for ever. One cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that in the history of the world it has happened more than once after a great controversy, after a war, the victorious Power has adopted some of the worst elements which that country has been fighting against. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government in the least at the present moment. I do not want to go into the Liversidge case at this moment, That ought to be the subject, if it is debated at all, of a formal Motion and a formal discussion, but there are certain circumstances that seems to me to require the very careful attention of the Government, and I hope we shall hear that they are giving them that attention.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we always listen with pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who invariably imparts an atmosphere of freshness into our debates, but I cannot help expressing a certain degree of regret that he should have raised this particular question here. It seems to me to be divided into two entirely distinct parts. It might be supposed that, in making the statement he did in another place, the Home Secretary departed from the usual

39
practice of abstaining from reference to this House, and that some question of Privilege might be considered to be involved. The observation, quoted by the noble Lord, which fell from Mr. Speaker on that occasion rather points to that conclusion. At the same time I have always, myself, imagined that any questions of breach of Privilege are confined to observations' made in the House itself, and that references made in another place or made here to the outside activities of a member of the other House would not in any case fall under the head of Privilege. But the second side of the question which has been rather unexpectedly pressed both by Lord Ponsonby and by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood—that of the degree in which the exceptional powers entrusted to His Majesty's Government, and in particular to the Home Secretary, are being exercised with propriety, or whether the due line of propriety has been passed—does not appear to me to enter into this question at all.
The sole point, as it appears to me, is as to whether a Minister of the Crown took an undue advantage of his position in animadverting unfavourably upon the activities of the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford. I have no wish to enter into the matter of the noble Duke's opinions, and I certainly should be very sorry in any way to condemn in general terms those who seek peace and endeavour to ensue it. I have always felt, and I am sure that most of your Lordships have felt, deep respect for the honest pacifist. We all respect the members of the Society of Friends, and we remember that in the last war there were many. Quakers who risked their lives in doing hospital work at the stations at the Front; but I take an altogether different view of those who suppose that it is possible now to come to any kind of terms with the slave-driving oligarchy that reigns at Berlin.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I would wish to intervene now in order, in the first place, to reinforce the distinction that has been pointed out by the noble Marquess who has just spoken. The question which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about a reference to the Duke of Bedford has nothing at all to do with internment or threat of internment, or
40
with the exercise, wise or unwise, of any of these powers of internment at all. It has to deal, as I shall point out in a moment, with quite a different matter, as indeed is plain to anybody who considers the speech of the Home Secretary, though I am not sure that Lord Ponsonby's observations will have made this very clear to the House. As to this other matter, to which my noble friend Lord Cecil in particular referred, it is one of the most tremendous importance. I do not yield to any man alive in my profound conviction that our constitutional liberties and traditions make it an essential mark of our country that we have not only respected, but by the most practical means provided for, the preservation of individual liberty, apart, of course, from the cases where an individual is convicted of crime or is of unsound mind. I yield to no man alive in recognizing that that tradition is one of the glories of Parliament and that the defence of that proposition is one of the splendours of the Judicature.
I only point out, before I pass to the real subject of this debate, that while that has always been our firm constitutional position, in history, more than once, in time of crisis, Parliament has deliberately suspended the right of habeas corpus. It has not done so in the present war, but it has done so in previous times. And I would remind your Lordships further that there is not a single member either in the House of Commons or the House of Lords who is entitled to disclaim responsibility for an invasion of civic liberties in the present war. In the early days of this war, or rather the day before it actually broke out, members of all Parties, either consciously or unconsciously, without dissent, or practically without dissent, agreed to the passing of the Emergency Powers Act, which, not by implication but by the express terms of the Statute, conferred upon the Government the responsibility through Orders in Council of providing for the detention—that means the internment—of individuals without their having been convicted of crime. If and when we have a debate on this subject no doubt many noble Lords may have something to say. I would ask them to put those two things together—the principle of individual liberty and Parliament's modification of it during the war. What Parliament has done, Parliament can undo, but it is not right to cast

41
blame upon Ministers as though they were engaged in abusing powers when those very powers, in the widest terms, by the express language of the Legislature, have been placed upon the responsible Executive. I say nothing at all about refinements or difficulties that arise. Nobody is more conscious of them than I am, and, as I have said, no one is more unwilling to admit that temporary exceptions have to be made, but, my Lords, with very great respect, it really is not right to treat this matter as though it was the wilful act of some Executive Department. It is the action of Parliament itself, and if Parliament says these powers are to be modified it is perfectly within the competence of Parliament to do so.
I venture only to add one other word upon this subject. It is not the subject of our discussion, though it has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cecil. Here I can speak with some knowledge of my own, both as a man who has twice been Home Secretary, and as a man who has seen at close quarters how these powers of internment are being exercised, I would assure you that, whether or not a mistake has been made in this case or that, this at least is not true, that anyone holding the office of Home Secretary regards this dreadful authority as something to be lightly or vicariously exercised. To my certain knowledge, the man, whoever he be, who holds this office of Home.Secretary—next to the duty of deciding whether a murderer shall be hanged—regards nothing which he ever undertakes with a greater sense of his personal responsibility than that of deciding whether he should or should not make an order that a fellow-subject, who had not been proved to have committed any crime, shall be detained. I hope I may be forgiven for making those observations, having first of all disqualified myself by saying that really this is not the question which was raised by Lord Ponsonby, but I did not like the very moving and powerful appeal of Lord Cecil to go by without some immediate observations on the subject.
Now, my Lords, when I saw this question of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on the Paper, I confess I was in some doubt as to what was the nature of the point that he wanted to raise, but he has, of course, made that much clearer in his delicately phrased speech. I wondered,
42
for example, whether this was raising a question of Privilege of the House, either perhaps because reference was made to the Duke of Bedford or perhaps because the statement was made by a Minister in the House of Commons. Of course, I well realize that I have no sort of authority to lay down the law about Privilege in your Lordships' House, but I would venture modestly to advance the view, the confident view, that no question of Privilege is involved at all. A Peer is as amenable to the law and administration that affects the safety of the realm as anybody else. If the Home Secretary has a right to make a reference to a commoner in such circumstances, I see nothing wrong in his making reference to a Peer. In fact, his reference was not even to anything any member of this House has said in this House or done in his character as a member of this House. As the noble Lord pointed out to us, in point of fact the Duke of Bedford, as yet, has taken no steps with the authorities of this House to prove his succession or to apply for a Writ of Summons, so that he cannot be here to take any part in our debates. Properly speaking, I suppose that he is potentially a Peer of Parliament but he has not made himself an actual member of the House of Peers. Of course it would be the height of folly to seek to inflate or extend the privileges of this House beyond their established and reasonable limits, for the privileges of this House are substantial and they are important. But no question of that sort arises here, and I therefore pass by that matter.
Secondly, if I have any sort of criticism of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in the matter of its presentation, I think it rather a pity he did not make clear to the House how this reference to the Duke of Bedford arose. It is exceedingly simple. It appears there was a debate going on in the House of Commons on the question as to whether or not the Home Secretary in discharge of his duty not to let any citizen leave this island and cross the seas without his permission was offending because he had thought he ought to refuse the exeat, if I may so call it, to a member of the House of Commons, and the debate was as to whether members of the House of Commons were not free or ought not to be free from any such possible restriction. Actually I think the instance that was being discussed was that of a

43
Scottish member of the House of Commons, who was anxious to go to Ireland; and it was over that that the debate arose. The Home Secretary, in the course of the debate on that subject, pointed out that if indeed it was to be laid down as an abstract proposition without possible exception that every member of the House of Commons was free to go to Ireland whenever he liked and that the Home Secretary should never dream of considering that he should be stopped, then that must also apply to members of the House of Lords—an argument perhaps which had a more alarming air in the other Chamber than it might have had here. It was in that connexion that the Home Secretary made a reference to the Duke of Bedford.
My noble friend quoted, quite accurately, of course, that the Home Secretary proceeded to say that he had his eye on him and that as far as he was concerned, as long as the Duke of Bedford held and proclaimed the opinions which he had been proclaiming, he (the Home Secretary) would not think he was a suitable person to be given leave to go to Ireland. I have nothing to do with the merits of that. The question is, does it really raise a grave and serious question to debate in your Lordships' House? I confess I do not think it does. It may be rather difficult to determine exactly within what limits reference should be made in one House either to the members of the other or to what goes on in the other. I recall that there was a discussion in this House a few years ago, which I had occasion to read before I came here, in which my noble friend Lord Rankeil-lour took part and the noble Marquess beside me also took part on the very interesting question as to what are, if any, the restrictions which should be observed. I doubt very much whether it is wise for us to attempt to lay down a hard-and-fast rule. I cannot conceive that any member of this House would wish to claim exemption from the kind of comment which may reasonably be made about other people. It is perhaps undesirable to have what I may call a long-range exchange between the two Houses, if only because it is likely to be exceedingly ineffective. If we had a system by which Ministers of the Crown could speak in both Houses, we might fetch the Home Secretary here and put him through it. As it is, each House has its own methods
44
—I speak as having been previously a member of the other House—its own sense of order, and its own atmosphere. I think we get on very well as we are and I would very humbly deprecate the laying down of strict rules.
The last observation I wish to make is this. I have already pointed out that my noble friend was really in error when he said that the Home Secretary's observations were wholly irrelevant. On the contrary, they were dealing with the exact point which was the subject of discussion. His other observation was that the Duke of Bedford was a man who was high-minded, disinterested and sincere, and I am certainly not seeking to challenge any of those propositions either about him or about anybody else, however unusual his views may be about the justification for the war or the conditions of the peace. But I must respectfully observe that the Duke of Bedford has been at great pains to circulate his opinions in quarters where they may be received. I am certainly not going to give those opinions any further advertisement. I have informed myself of some of them. We are all of us entitled to our own views. I am afraid I regard these opinions as utterly irresponsible and completely pestilential. The Duke, I think, is fortunate, and no doubt feels himself to be fortunate, in being a British subject. If he was a German and was in Germany and if he gave expression to the reverse opinions and denounced Hitler and all his works, and found excuses for Hitler's enemies in various directions, then indeed I think my noble friend Lord Ponsonby would be well justified in descanting on the Gestapo. On the contrary, this gentleman is at liberty. He unquestionably has attracted—inevitably attracted—a good deal of attention because of views which I must regard as very strange and very unusual. I do not think that the reference made to him in the House of Commons was out of place. On the contrary, it was an illustration entirely to the point. I hope that having had this matter out, your Lordships may agree with me that it is just possible to make a little too much of these things, and in time of war we had better get on with the essential work.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for having given such a carefully reasoned

45
and courteous reply to my question on the Paper. With a great deal of what he said I was in entire agreement, and I am sure the whole House was. Certainly in the first part of his remarks, where he was dealing with the larger question of habeas corpus, with his usual very careful arguing he made out a case with which we all enthusiastically agree. I did not get to that part of the question in my remarks, nor did I enter into the question of Privilege. I think I should have made a speech perhaps not so appropriate in your Lordships' House as elsewhere if Mr. Jones of Peckham had been the person referred to by the Home Secretary, because it struck me at once when I read the reference that it was a method of dragging in a name in order that somebody could be pointed out as a traitorous and undesirable person to be free.
I still think that in his concluding remarks on what I agree is perhaps a narrow point, the noble and learned Viscount hardly saw the effect that this sort of rhetorical treatment of a very serious subject may have. It opens the floodgates to further speeches from the Home Secretary or Ministers of the Crown, casting aspersions on other individuals until at last there will be a considerable number of people in this country who will be in doubt as to whether and as to how lone they will be and remain free. I cannot help thinking that we are on the fringe of a very serious subject here, and that while we shout so much from platforms that we are fighting for democracy—I do not think that is being said quite so much just now—it might be as well to see if we can preserve the relics of democracy which still exist very jealously and without allowing a Minister, however able, to have unfettered discretion not only in sending people to internment but in referring to people in order that an ugly interpretation may be put on any remarks made by them. But I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for having replied so fully, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATLANTIC CHARTER: ECONOMIC SECURITY.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they
46
are taking to give practical effect to the fifth principle in the Atlantic Charter, with which the sixth is also closely bound up; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am venturing to submit certain suggestions to your Lordships based on that great instrument for good which was born of the conversations between the two greatest men of our day, the President of the United States and our Prime Minister. As your Lordships will remember, the fifth principle of the Atlantic Charter is as follows:
" To bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security."
The sixth principle, as your Lordships will remember, outlines the main advantages which will accrue and emphasizes the determination in these words, that all "may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want."
Your Lordships heard a few days ago His Majesty's gracious Speech on the opening of Parliament and were, I feel sure, deeply impressed with these words:
" My Government, in consultation with the Allied Governments, and with the good will of the Government of the United States of America, are considering the urgent problems which will face them when the nations now enduring the tyranny of the oppressor have regained their freedom."
Following so soon after the proclamation of the Atlantic Charter it is obvious that all the forces in the world striving for freedom will be inspired by these fine sentiments and will do all that lies in their power to assist in their realization. I venture to think, too, that your Lordships will feel that a debate at this time will serve a useful purpose and assist His Majesty's Government with suggestions in the great task which lies ahead, the importance of which has been so clearly emphasized. Such high ideals have, I feel sure, been shared by your Lordships in the twenty-one years that have passed between the wars, but no one would, I think, claim that they were realized in a practical way. In fact from the beginning of the century, as one country after another took its place as a competitor in the world's market, it has become increasingly evident that the degree and nature of the competition was a source of friction and strain rather than a growing bond of unity.
Further, the hopes expressed in Principle 5 of the Atlantic Charter clearly cannot be realized so long as the problem of unemployment remains unsolved. In the twenty-one years between the wars all the advanced industrial nations suffered from serious social unrest from that one cause. In this country we had a total of unemployed up to 3,000,000. In Germany, had there not been 7,000,000 unemployed it is most unlikely that the Nazis would ever have come to power. In the United States of America it has been estimated that there were at one time some 13,000,000 unemployed—and so I might continue. Yet no one, I am sure, is going to suggest that there was not during these years a very great desire on the part of successive Governments to find a solution to these problems. The point I would emphasize to your Lordships is that it is not sufficient to desire a thing unless one also wills the means. It is hard to believe that statesmen who through twenty-one years of peace had no solution for these problems can have stumbled upon the true solution whilst their thoughts and energies must naturally be concentrated primarily upon the prosecution of the war. If, however, this should be so, I can think of no single circumstance which, if broadcast to the world, would put greater heart into our own people and our Allies and all who strive for freedom, or would prove a sharper weapon of propaganda against our enemies who are so often referring to their future plans. If, however, as I fear, the solution has not been found then I would suggest to your Lordships the importance of urging upon His Majesty's Government, in the strongest possible manner, that every effort should be made to find one, and towards such an end I feel sure your Lordships can help very materially. The solution of these problems, when found, would be that new and potent weapon for which the Government have been looking.
This world conflict, my Lords, is at root a war of ideas. The Nazis gave their people assured employment in building up that monstrous engine of destruction which we now see at work. The terrible price which their people have had to pay for that measure of material security has been the surrender of their spiritual and
48
political freedom. We must not, however, minimize the strength of the appeal which an assurance of economic security must make to men who have experienced the misery of years of unemployment and economic insecurity; who have, through no fault of their own, been obliged to stand idle in the market place while their women and children suffer. The Democracies neither employed their people to manufacture engines of destruction nor did they employ them on constructive peaceful work; to remove, for example, systematically and completely that blot on our civilization, the slums; on the contrary, they paid them a dole to produce nothing. It was financially cheaper to pay them a dole to do nothing than to pay them full wages to create real wealth. Whilst our people have retained their spiritual and political freedom, as is so evident, they have been denied that day-to-day, week-to-week security of employment which means so much to every wage earner. I ask your Lordships to consider how mighty a weapon of propaganda we should have in our hands if we could offer the world an economic system which would guarantee the individual against long-continued and enforced idleness, and the nations a brighter prospect of exchange of their goods and services to their mutual advantage, and which would offer these things without it being necessary for them, as a condition, to surrender their spiritual and political freedom.
It is, I think, now generally recognized throughout the Empire and in other countries, that there must be some fundamental flaw in our economic system which converts international trade, which should be mutually advantageous, and, therefore, a bond of union, into a competitive struggle of the most ferocious character in which the victor gets the vanquished into unpayable debt; that there must be a flaw in a system which produces the obvious absurdity of men in need of the necessaries of life being denied the money with which to buy them because there is a superabundance of those necessaries, and, therefore, their services are not required to make any more. That these things are rationally indefensible has been evident to all thinking men for a very long time. Your Lordships will probably have read a work of Gustave Le Bon. In his great book on crowd psychology, which was first published forty-five

49
years ago, he observes that human beings are not governed by reason but by what he describes as "anterior ideas which have become sentiments." It is here that our real difficulty lies. We have certain preconceived notions on financial and economic matters which we have held for so long, and which are so deeply rooted, that it is taking two world wars, and the actual, visible disruption of the system which was the expression of our theories, to induce us even to give a hearing to those who have from time to time been pointing out the directions in which reform is necessary. If there is a fundamental error in our financial and economic system, then it follows that there must be a fundamental change in our thinking on these subjects before any effective remedy will be accepted.
As your Lordships are well aware, our economic theories were formulated under the influence of the economists of the last and earlier centuries. The application of science to industry has brought about, in an incredibly short space of time, the greatest revolution in the whole course of human history in the fundamental facts upon which all our economic thought is based. Circumstances alter cases; and the circumstances of our economic life have been changed out of all recognition by the coming of power production. It has been estimated that 97 per cent. of the power production which we now enjoy has been rendered possible by the developments which have taken place since the beginning of this century. When so vast a change in the economic scene occurs in so short a spice of time as forty years, it is hardly surprising that men have found it impossible to adapt their thinking, and much less their preconceived notions, their sentiments, and their prejudices, to the unprecedented phenomena with which they are confronted. It is natural, I suggest, that they should cling to outworn shibboleths and obsolete systems.
It is because of this growing gap between the forward-rushing world of economic facts and the backward-looking world of economic thought that, whilst we are conscious of these glaring absurdities, we have been paralysed in action by this conflict in our minds between patent fact and cherished theory. This conflict has led to a sense of impotence and frustration. For twenty-one years between the wars we struggled desperately to make the facts conform with our theories. Facts are
50
very hard things; we shall never make them conform with our theories, and the task before us is to revise our theories so that they shall conform with the new facts of the new world. I have, in common with many of your Lordships, studied these matters over a number of years, as far as one whose task primarily relates to aeronautics is able to do so. I have read many of the published works, and, in my humble opinion, a number of the schemes put forward do not seem to be workable and others are somewhat involved to follow. Many of these works are in private circulation, thus showing that many of independent mind are working upon these problems.
In my judgment by far the most important contribution in this field which has recently come to my notice is entitled A Twentieth Century Economic System. Your Lordships may have seen this book, which is not a very large one, consisting of some fifty pages of notepaper size; but in case you have not, I have taken the liberty of bringing with me a number of copies which I will ask the permission of the Leader of your Lordships' House to hand to those of your Lordships who are interested, outside the Chamber following on this debate. This book serves to amplify in clear language and in some detail the matters regarding which I am anxious to obtain your Lordships' interest and support. Without its aid I should find it difficult to submit all the facts with sufficient clarity and within the compass of your Lordships' time. It not only fearlessly faces the major economic problems which will be before us after this war, but also shows, in the most logical and convincing way, where the root errors in our economic thinking lie, which, if we persist in them, will make it impossible for us in the future, as in the past, to solve these problems.
The time for palliatives for mitigating the consequences of error is past. Nothing short of cure, a courageous tackling of root causes, can, I submit, now save our civilization from major catastrophe. The book of which I am speaking goes on to say, in clear language, what reforms are necessary in our financial system to ensure, nationally, a stable price level and the abolition of enforced idleness and, internationally, the conversion of international trade from financial war to an exchange of goods and

51
of services to the mutual advantage of both parties. The author believes—and I agree with him—that unemployment at home and the ferocious international struggle for markets abroad must be eliminated, or else the fear, resentment and frustration which these things have spread through the world will destroy our civilization. These, then, are the root problems. When they are solved many consequential evils will disappear and the subsidiary problems which will remain will become capable of solution. We cannot any longer afford to treat the symptom whilst ignoring the disease.
The principal economic problems, I suggest, with which we shall be faced after this war can be enumerated very briefly as follows: Firstly, under-consumption and unemployment, which are inseparable. Secondly, the trade cycle. Thirdly, the international financial problem, with which is bound up the struggle for favourable balances of payment, involving tariffs, quotas and so on, the buying and selling of foreign currencies over the exchange by speculators and others, and the threat to the exchange value of national currencies, leading to unpayable debt. Fourthly, the unwillingness, consequent upon their industrialization, of primary producing countries, and more particularly the Dominions and India, to receive imports of manufactured goods which previously they had imported freely. Fifthly, nations with different internal economic systems must be enabled to live in the same world without those differences constituting a threat to the continued existence of one another's internal systems. Lastly, the movement of peoples from over-populated to underpopulated countries. The objection of the latter to receiving immigrants is due to the unemployment of their own people, and will disappear when that problem is solved.
I shall not take up the time of your Lordships' House in attempting to describe in any detail the methods advocated in this book, A Twentieth Century Economic System, for dealing fundamentally and realistically with these problems, because, as I said before, I have brought a few copies of this work with me which your Lordships may care to study at your leisure. There are, however, a few points which I should like to
52
emphasize. Time and again, during the twenty-one years between the wars, the statesmen of all countries have paid lip-service, at conferences as fruitless as they were numerous, to the obligation that nations had to take imports in payment for their exports. We were always hearing of "two-way traffic." Straight from these conferences they went to increase the height of their tariffs and to devise new methods for excluding imports, whilst using every sort of expedient to increase their exports. There were compelling reasons for this—unemployment at home, and the knowledge that if they did not get other nations into unpayable debt to them, other nations would get them into a state of unpayable debt. You cannot all have favourable balances. If some nations have favourable balances, others must have unfavourable balances. Is it not time to abandon persuasion, recrimination and bickering, and establish a system which gives a nation the option of taking its payments in goods and services or nothing? That appeals to me as being a realistic view of the problem.
There is an aspect of this matter which touches the future of the British Empire very closely. During this war the Dominions and India have been obliged, and indeed have been urged and encouraged by us, to establish great industries. It is evident that when peace returns they will wish to perfect and foster those industries. Some will be industries which, on a fair view of their interests, they should develop. It may be, however, that there will be other industries clamouring for a high degree of protection, which on a fair view it would be hard to justify. We had this same problem, as your Lordships will remember, in a far smaller degree after the last war. If we are in the future as in the past to rely for the maintenance of our export trade upon alternate recrimination and wheedling, and that with our Dominions and India, I suggest relations will become very strained.
One of the reasons advanced in the book to which I have referred for the suggested new technique—a reason which appeals to me strongly, as I feel sure it will to your Lordships—is that, if adopted, it would take this problem out of the international arena and place it, where it belongs, in the national arena.

53
If a nation wished to export and be paid for its exports, it would have to take imports. In so far as it stopped imports coming in, to that extent it would stop its own exports unless, of course, it wished to make presents. The height and width of tariffs would therefore be a matter for discussion within each country—between those interests which wished to export and those which were asking for protection to stop imports coming in. No doubt in each country a reasonable compromise would be reached, some countries preferring a larger overseas two-way traffic and others a smaller trade and a larger measure of protection for their home industries. It will, however, be appreciated that when nations met one another to negotiate trade treaties both parties would be as much interested in their import as in their export trade. They would be meeting in an atmosphere where both would know not only what they wished to export but also what they were willing to import in exchange. On this basis our future trade relations with the Dominions and India would, I suggest, become a source of great strength and a bond of union. On the old basis I suggest we can foresee increasing tension. I believe that if adopted, the proposed technique would remove fear from international economic relationships, would reduce the growing asperity of international competition for markets and, by restoring to international trade its true character of a mutually advantageous exchange of surpluses, would do much to usher in a better world.
Will your Lordships now permit me to turn for a few minutes to the internal reforms which are advocated as necessary to solve the unemployment problem? These are in themselves simple, logical and capable of being put into effect without having to call upon the business community at large to alter their customary procedure. They are, in short, practical and practicable. They do however involve, as all changes must, the acceptance of certain sacrifices by cerrain interests. Those sacrifices will, I am sure, readily be met by those interests when once they are convinced of their need. The greater difficulty is, perhaps, that they involve, as I have pointed out, some fundamental change in our preconceived notions, in our dearly-cherished economic theories and, more particularly, in our theories about
54
money. It is true that circumstances have already rudely shaken some of our old beliefs about money, which were held with almost religious fervour and until ten years ago were believed to be beyond question, except by those few whom we labelled as "cranks." We have a convenient way of forgetting uncomfortable facts, but I am sure your Lordships will remember that only ten years ago we regarded it as axiomatic that gold gave value to money, and that money would immediately become worthless if it had not got an adequate gold backing. Yet within the space of those ten years the rôles have been reversed, and if anyone is suspected of cherishing a theory now which has been so comprehensively and thoroughly disproved by fact, he is labelled a "museum piece "or a" gold bug." We are, I hope and believe, less ready now to dismiss as cranks those who put forward views which run counter to our preconceived notions.
Now I come to the vital question of unemployment. It is, your Lordships will agree, clearly absurd that men in need of the necessaries of life should be denied the money with which to buy them because there is a superabundance of those necessaries, and therefore their services are not required to produce more. Unemployment is in fact a by-product of underconsumption, a shortage of effective demand for the goods which the nation is capable of producing, for example, the shortage of money in the pockets of the people wanting to buy goods. If, in the years between the wars, we could have increased the effective demand for goods from the masses, it is clear that the labour of the unemployed would have been immediately required to produce those additional goods, which would have meant that they in their turn would have had wages instead of a dole, and so would have required still more goods. The problem is one purely of equating effective demand with supply, whereas hitherto all our efforts have been directed towards trying to equate supply with effective demand by scrapping perfectly good capital equipment, by the limitation of output, and by the deliberate destruction of real wealth. When there is a surplus of goods of all sorts overhanging the market and causing a slump, what is needed is that effective demand should be increased without the supply of goods

55
awaiting consumption in the market being similarly increased.
The problem has arisen in its modern acute form owing to the development within the last forty years of power production. A machine produces goods, but it does not consume them. Out of the sale price of the finished product must be paid the wages of the machine, that is, interest on capital. Those wages would in the past, that is, before the coming of the machine age, have gone to many men, and would undoubtedly have been used by them to buy and consume goods. The wages of the machine, on the other hand, go to a comparatively small number of people, the owners of capital, who are not likely to increase their consumption of mass-produced goods. Mass production implies mass consumption. In fact, goods will not for long be produced if there are no buyers. The wages of the machines can only be distributed to the workers as wages for making more machines, until the speed becomes so great that a crash occurs.
Your Lordships are well aware that various methods have been used to increase demand without increasing supplies—exports on loan, Social Services and public works. Under the first system effective demand is increased by distributing wages to the workers from money subscribed by investors; in short, purchasing power is transferred from those citizens with money to burn to those who will use it to buy goods, whilst their product is shipped out of the country and relatively little comes back. Under the second and third methods, purchasing power must either be taken away by taxation from the employed citizens in order to give it to unemployed citizens, or it must be borrowed at interest, which involves further taxation to pay the additional interest on the enlarged National Debt. Exports, when they are not on loan, do not offer a solution because exports imply imports to pay for them, and it our people have not got the money to buy their own output, they will not have the money to buy the output of other nations which they may exchange for their own.
At the beginning of the last war the total bank deposits were £1,000,000,000. At the end of that war they equalled £2,000,000,000. In 1938 the total bank deposits were £2,277,000,000, and in July
56
of this year they were £2,991,000,000—an increase of over £700,000,000 in three years. In the book to which I referred, your Lordships will find a number of authorities quoted—the late Sir Edward Holden (Chairman of the Midland Bank), Governor Eccles (President of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States), Mr. R. G. Hawtrey (of the Treasury), Mr. J. M. Keynes, Mr. McKenna (Chairman of the Midland Bank), and Sir Ernest Harvey (Deputy Governor of the Bank of England)—to show that this brand-new money was created by the banks and lent into existence at interest, largely to the Government. In short, credits to a larger value were being given in respect of new loans than were offset by old ones being repaid. Paper money, and still more book-entry money, of which the vast bulk of the purchasing media of any State consists, are practically costless to create. It is evident that at the moment of creation such money cannot be the property of any private citizen or private institution as no service has been rendered for it, whereas, when created, it becomes a demand on goods and services which will be honoured by all citizens.
It has been estimated by Professor Gustav Cassell that the normal annual increase in the output of goods was three per cent., and he recognized that unless prices were to fall there must be a proportionate annual increase in the amount of money in issue. I suggest that the annual increase in real wealth would be infinitely greater than three per cent., if instead of men being paid to do nothing, capital equipment destroyed, and the output of raw materials restricted, we utilized these to the full. There would therefore be a substantial amount of new purchasing media which would have to be injected into the system each year to equate with this additional output of real wealth. It is this brand-new money which it is suggested should in future be spent into existence, in the first place, by the Government instead of being lent into existence by the banks. The Government, relieved of the need to increase taxes to pay interest on this brand-new money, could rapidly increase effective demand whenever a slump was threatened by spending it into existence. It could, for example, pay reasonable pensions to old people. No one should have to look forward to an old age, after a lifetime of

57
hard work, on a pension of a few shillings a week, and there is no doubt that the old people would very readily absorb some of the surplus goods overhanging the market if provided with the means to do so.
Your Lordships will agree that the interest rate now being paid to the banks for this newly-created book entry represents, in effect, a fee to them for the additioned clerical work involved. This cannot, however, I suggest, justify the capital sum being shown as a debt from the State to the banks, nor do I feel that the State should pay, by way of interest on loan, a fee which should properly be paid by the citizens enjoying the facilities of the bank. It is now admitted on all sides that the problem with which, under peace conditions, the world is faced is not one of production but of distribution, and by distribution is not meant that there is a scarcity of shipping, locomotives, or motor transport, but failure to distribute money or purchasing power in such a way as to ensure that the goods the world is capable of producing can be bought and, therefore, consumed. Goods are not for long produced if there are no buyers. We therefore have this absurd spectacle of production being artificially restricted and men paid not to produce, whilst as a consequence of this action we have dire poverty.
We have searched every avenue and left no stone unturned except down the financial avenue, which is the one where the machinery for the distribution of money is and therefore obviously the one in which the remedy can be found. This avenue has for so long been shrouded in mystery, the mere mention of it has for so long been taboo, the invigorating breezes of public criticisms, so essential a part of English life, have for so long been excluded, that, unlike our other institutions which have been obliged to adapt themselves to changing circumstances, our financial mechanism has become dangerously obsolete.
I suggest that your Lordships should read, if you have not already done so, a book entitled Economic Tribulation by the late Mr. Vincent Vickers, at one time a. director of the Bank of England. It was published about a year ago. He recognized that the ever-growing capacity of power production to turn out enough goods for the needs of all was an irresistible force, and he made an earnest and
58
urgent appeal to our financial authorities to modernize their system before it was too late. When not diverted to war production, power production is capable of turning out the necessaries, and indeed the luxuries, of life in a volume never before in human history conceived of as possible. After the last war we and the rest of the world had more skilled labour, more capital equipment, more raw material than we had at the beginning of the war. We were capable of producing more real wealth, and we were therefore richer. That, my Lords, was thinking in terms of reality. If our bookkeeping system, which should reflect reality, assured us that we were poorer—as it did—then there was something wrong with our bookkeeping, not with the facts. We prefer to believe that bookkeeping rather than our senses. The superabundance which was actually produced we termed "general over-production," instead of recognizing it for what it was, general under-consumption—the failure of the financial system to distribute enough licences-to-consume to enough people. Instead of increasing effective demand we concentrated upon limiting and destroying supply.
We tried for twenty-one years to dam back the ever-growing flood of plenty. Man's inventive genius is beating us in that struggle. Even during war, perhaps especially during war, the advance in science, in technology, in the development of labour-saving devices, goes forward. It is an irresistible force. The financial system was made for man, not man for the financial system. It was invented by man to facilitate the production and distribution of real wealth, and, instead, it is now standing between him and the enjoyment of that ever-growing volume of material wealth which modern science has made possible. History has shown convincingly how disastrous are the consequences when institutions blindly refuse to adapt themselves to changing conditions and get in the way of irresistible forces. The British Empire, comprising one-third of the population of the world, has a terrible responsibility in this matter. It alone is in the position to establish within its own boundaries a new financial technique both nationally and internationally, and by practical demonstrations to lead the world into new paths of peace and prosperity. We won the last war but lost the peace, and your

59
Lordships' House, is, I am convinced, in a unique position to give an important lead—as is expected of it and consonant with its great traditons—in assisting to bring about these essential economic reforms and so to avoid history repeating its lessons.
We must make sure that plans to this end are settled and made known with the minimum of delay. Nothing could be more inspiring to all those who are fighting aggression than to know that the economic system, so out of phase with our scientific and technical world, has been remodelled. I realize that to reform our financial system will require courage, but it is not necessary to remind your Lordships that the greatness of the Empire was not won by our forefathers remaining content with the achievements of their ancestors. The Empire has in the past led the world, when circumstances demanded it, along new paths, and that always means willingness to accept sacrifices and the perils of the unknown. As Whitehead said:
" A race preserves its vigour so long as it harbours a real contrast between what has been and what may be; and so long as it is nerved by this vigour to adventure beyond the safeties of the past. Without such a spirit of adventure civilization is in full decay."
I thank your Lordships very sincerely and humbly for listening to, of necessity, a somewhat lengthy speech, and pray your support. I beg to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has asked His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to give practical effect to the fifth principle in the Atlantic Charter, with which the sixth is also closely bound up. I wish, if I may say so, that the noble Lord had been able to give me some indication of the type of points he was going to raise, for, as he will be aware and as the House will be aware, the fifth principle of the Atlantic Charter is very widely drawn, and under it almost any subject could be discussed. But at any rate I have no doubt at all that the House will have listened with the greatest interest to the thoughtful speech which the noble Lord has delivered, and I am quite sure, too, that your Lordships will not take any exception to the fact that any noble Lord
60
should raise the question of the Atlantic Charter in this House, for however occupied we may be with the present, it is clearly desirable that we should begin to look forward into the future.
There may be no sign that this war is yet drawing to a close. It may be that there are yet sterner trials before us. But wars of attrition—and this I think it will be generally agreed has become a war of attrition—are like tugs-of-war. For a very long time neither party appears to be gaining any advantage, and then, quite suddenly, one side begins to weaken, and after that the end is not far off. That was our experience in 1918. It may well be our experience again, and it is clearly right that we should take thought of the future now so that as soon as German morale begins to crack, as we hope and believe it will do, we shall be in a position to go straight on to the next phase, the rebuilding of the shattered world. Now the first step in this process has, I think, already been taken in the Atlantic Charter. In that instrument, the leader:, of the great Anglo-Saxon nations which must play a main part both in making and in maintaining peace, laid down the general principles which were to guide them in their endeavours when the war is over. The noble Lord in his Motion, and I think to a certain extent in the speech which he delivered, asked what steps are already being taken to give practical application to those principles. He made certain specific suggestions. I can assure him that the Government are most grateful for his suggestions, and they will take the most careful note of what he has said.
At the same time I do not suppose that for one moment he expects me, to-day and now, to give a catalogue of the measures which His Majesty's Government in due course will have to pass in order to give effect to Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter. Clearly that would be impossible. For one thing the Atlantic Charter was intended to refer entirely to the future. It does not affect the world at war. It is for the world after the war, and that is made perfectly clear by the phrase in Article 6 of the Charter which says "after final destruction of the Nazi tyranny" and the other phrase in Article 4 which talks about "victor or vanquished." The second reason why it is impossible for me to go into it in great

61
detail to-day, is that the actual application of those principles, as Article 5 itself stresses, are not for one nation alone but for collaboration between all nations. Their incorporation into art international post-war structure will clearly be a matter for the general examination of those who have to be concerned in making the peace.
This point, as the noble Lord will know, was stressed by the Prime Minister himself, in another place on the 9th September last, when he said:
" Questions have been asked, and will no doubt be asked, as to exactly what is implied by this or that point, and explanations have been invited. It is a wise rule that when two parties have agreed a statement, one of them shall not, thereafter without consultation with the other, seek to put special or strained interpretations upon this or that passage."
That is I think clearly right, and noble Lords will certainly not expect me to go further than the Prime Minister. Indeed, I think my task would be more difficult even than was his when he spoke in September last, for at that time, though the whole of the British Commonwealth of Nations was, I think, regarded for this purpose as a single unit, the pact was a bilateral pact, but since then, by the adhesion of the Allied Governments now in London, and the Soviet Union, it has become a multilateral pact, and it is clearly both undesirable and impossible for any one signatory of a multilateral pact to put its own interpretation upon a document which is later to become a subject of general negotiation.
I would not like this House to conclude from what I have said that nothing at all has been done or is being considered. Noble Lords will be well aware that a meeting of Allied Governments took place on the 24th September last, and at that meeting, after adhering to the Atlantic Charter, they passed a resolution dealing with the problem of the distribution of food to the occupied countries as soon as hostilities have ceased, and to this resolution, as noble Lords will be aware, the United States Government, though they were not a party, informed the other Governments of their interest and their readiness to co-operate at a proper moment. That, I think we shall all agree, was a practical example of international co-operation for the future, and I hope that it will be expanded and extended at further meetings of the Allied Governments.
62
I can assure my noble friend that His Majesty's Government here have, as noble Lords will be aware, set up an organization to consider post-war problems under the guidance of a Minister without Portfolio in collaboration with other Government Departments concerned. I understand that my right honourable friend is shortly to make a full statement on that, and obviously it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate what the responsible Minister is going to say. I think, however, I can at least say this, that he is the chairman of a group of Ministers who, with their representatives, are engaged on finding
" practical solutions for the immediate problems of a transition from war to peace."
Their duty is also
" to outline and presently to amplify a policy for the years immediately following the war which will command the support of the nation as a whole and enable united action to proceed in peace as in war."
The noble Lord will be glad to hear that the Ministers concerned, in spite of the fact that they and their Departments are strenuously occupied with war activities have been able to begin consideration of the many problems involved. It cannot be expected that rapid conclusions will be reached even so far as this country alone is concerned. The field is almost unbelievably extensive, whilst the questions coming within it are some of the most controversial, as the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Sempill, made clear.
First, there is the vast complex of our overseas trade. How are we to maintain our balance of payments, and how are we to earn exchange in order that we may provide ourselves with necessary imports? Linked with the question of overseas trade are those of finance, shipping and transport, currency difficulties, overseas surpluses and shortages and the transference of industry from a war to a peace basis in order that it may be able to export once more goods which the world needs. On the internal economic side the problems are no less vast. They include the problems of the maintenance of employment, to which the noble Lord made a very moving reference, which is linked with financial issues, demobilization of the Fighting Services and the Civil Defence Services, the position of war factories, the disposal of surplus goods, the resettlement of the wounded and disabled

63
and of evacuees, all of which impinge on social questions. Such are the questions to be examined. They touch on the work of most of the Departments in the Government and raise issues of magnitude on which no premature pronouncements can possibly be made. Ministers and Departments concerned are, in co-operation with the Office of the Minister without Portfolio, examining these problems on a co-ordinated plan and are endeavouring to build up a policy which will be coherent and satisfactory.
I can assure my noble friend that no matter is now engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government more than the question of unemployment to which he referred. A Government such as this, composed of all the Parties in the State, should be particularly qualified to deal with it. I would not like the noble Lord to make any mistake in forming the conclusion that the Government think it is an easy problem. They do not. It is a very difficult problem, which has baffled all economists for the last 100 years. But they can do this: they can tackle it with an open mind and without prejudice, and that they are determined to do. They can also seek the fullest co-operation of all the Dominions and all the countries in the Empire. These, I am quite sure—and I am in a better position than most to know—are destined after the war to play a very much larger part even than they have done in the past. Nothing that will further that development must be left undone. I can assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government intend to keep in the closest consultation with the Dominion Governments for that purpose.
That, I am afraid, is all that I can say to the noble Lord to-day, but I think it will be enough to show him that the important questions which he raised in his speech are not being neglected. It is clearly essential that we should both look forward and plan forward, and by that I do not mean that we should merely gaze smugly and vaguely into the far distant future, as some people are accustomed to do. That would be merely to fall into the error of little Johnny Head-in-Air, whose deplorable end noble Lords will no doubt remember. What we have to do is practically and realistically to make up our minds where we want to go as soon
64
as the war is over and how to get there. In this study His Majesty's Government, and no doubt the Governments of the Dominions and Allied Powers and of the United States, are already actively engaged in order that they may be in a position to put Article 5 and all the other articles of the Atlantic Charter into practical effect when the time comes.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend for the full statement he has made of the views of His Majesty's Government on this very important matter. I apologise to him for the fact that I did not perhaps worry him in advance with some of the details of the remarks I proposed to submit, but as he says that there is to be a statement in another place in regard to those matters, possibly that statement might be enlarged to take account of particular things which I had the honour to submit to your Lordships' House in this debate. It is most important, in my view, that that statement should be made as soon as possible, and should be as strong as possible, showing exactly what is the viewpoint of His Majesty's Government with regard to the world which is to be set up when this tyranny has been quelled in the only way in which it can be quelled. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIAN UNITS IN AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I rise to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether a list can be given of the various Indian Regiments, units of which have taken part in the campaigns in the Western Desert, East Africa, Iraq and Syria.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, units of the following Indian Regiments and Services took part in the campaigns in the Western Desert, East Africa, Iraq, Syria and also the movement into Persia:

65

Indian Armoured Corps,

Indian Artillery,

Sappers and Miners,

Indian Corps of Signals,

Punjab Regiments,

Mahratta Light Infantry,

Rajputana Rifles,

Jat Regiment,

Baluch Regiment,

Sikh Regiment,

Frontier Force Regiment,

Frontier Force Rifles,

Royal Garhwal Rifles,

Hyderabad Regiment,

Gurkha Rifles,

Royal Indian Army Service Corps,

Indian Medical Services,

Indian Army Ordnance Corps.

I am grateful to my noble friend for calling attention to the need for publication of these facts, in view of the great services these Forces have given to the whole of our cause in the Middle East.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend for his reply, and to assure him that the information will be received with great interest both in India and in this country.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table. The Alphabetical Roll was ordered to be printed

HOME GROWN OATS (STANDARD PRICE) ORDER, 1941.
Order dated 30th September, 1941, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department with the approval of the Treasury under Part I of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HAPPISBURGH AND BACTON (NOR FOLK) COAST PROTECTION ORDER, 1941.
Draft Order made by the Minister of War Transport under Section I of the Coast Protection Act, 1939:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

DUMFRIES ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1941.
Special Order in respect of part of the Burgh of Dumfries:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTA TION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT No. 2) ORDER, 1941.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (SCHED ULED CASTES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1941.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Act to the
  Borough of Bridgewater;
  Urban District of Letchworth;
  Rural District of Mildenhall (Parish of Mildenhall);
  Rural District of Sevenoaks (Parish of Westerham);
  Borough of Stretford:
  Borough of Wanstead and Woodford:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned.