Lords Sitting of 8 October 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

FOOD SITUATION: SUPPLIES FROM U.S.A.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government how far the recent improvement in the food situation, which is reflected in the decision to increase certain rations during the winter, is the result of the supplies of food coming from the United States of America under the lease and lend arrangements.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity of giving the House some information on this point. I should perhaps start by saying that our stock position, so far as the bulky storable foods are concerned, is good, and that, indeed, we enter the third year of the war with better reserves of such things as wheat and sugar than we have held at any previous period since the war began. These bulky commodities are the foodstuffs that have made the heaviest demands on our shipping tonnage. The fact that we hold big stocks of them is the best demonstration possible that we have been getting the better of the enemy in the Atlantic, a task in which we are receiving most valuable American aid.
We have been taking advantage of the long hours of daylight through the summer months to build up reserves against the greater risks and difficulties of the winter. These reserves are our insurance against starvation. In themselves, however, they do not provide a balanced diet such as we need if we are going to keep this country fighting fit. What may be called the balancing items in diet are the things which have been giving us most trouble—such things as meat, bacon, eggs, milk, cheese and dried fruits. My medical adviser, Lord Horder, and Professor Drummond, the Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Food, tell me that some months ago the supplies of these things were at a dangerously low level. Generally speaking, most of the
180
items which I have mentioned cannot be stored in large quantities; many of them require cold storage and so cannot be accumulated in this country to a very considerable extent.
In a recent White Paper issued by His Majesty's Government it was stated that the food coming to this country under lend-lease constituted 5 to 6 per cent. by weight of our total food supply, and that, of course, was correct; but lend-lease goods include very few of the bulky types of food. We explained to the American Government that our urgent need was for the balancing items which I have mentioned—canned and dried milk, canned meat, canned fish, bacon, cheese, dried fruits, eggs and egg products. These are the things that we are receiving from the United States, and, as Mr. Wickard, the head of the Department of Agriculture in the United States, has recently pointed out, they constitute a highly significant percentage of our total supplies of foods of that particular type. Apart from the bulk cargoes of such things as cereals, sugar and oilseeds, the programmes on which we are working show that we shall receive quite 25 per cent. of our total needs from the United States. It has recently been possible, I am glad to state, for us to say encouraging things to the people of this country about our food outlook. That was possible only because we felt certain that the United States of America was standing behind us and was going to develop the volume of its aid to us. For instance, it is American lard that has permitted us to increase the fat ration in this country this winter.
The United States is now, of course, one of the nearest sources of supply available to us. To bring in the great volume of food which we shall be obtaining from that country on the comparatively short haul across the Atlantic is an economy in the use of shipping that is worth a very large number of additional ships to us. The particular foods that we need under lend-lease are not being made available to us without very special efforts. They are not of the type that the United States has been accustomed to export in large quantities; and to find the amounts that we need is requiring a very special effort on the part of American farmers. In contrast with the large surpluses of cereals, there was comparatively little surplus of these things when the

181
lend-lease arrangements first came into operation. But we are already receiving substantial shipments. American cheese is already sustaining an increased domestic ration in this country, and also special allocations to certain industrial workers. American canned milk has enabled the Ministry of Food to guarantee a sufficiency of milk throughout the winter to mothers and children. We have already been able to distribute American dried fruit; American supplies of lard, as I have said, will enable us to raise the fats rations to 10 ounces a week this winter. We are going to be able, within a few weeks, to allocate American canned meat in quantities sufficient to permit of nation-wide distribution.
While the level of food distribution has improved, and will be further improved with the ration increases that take effect in mid-November, your Lordships will be aware that we shall still not be in any danger of living on a luxurious diet in this country. The meat ration, when cooked, gives us an average of only about 7 ounces of edible meat a week on the plate, and I make no secret to your Lordships that I have difficulty in maintaining the ration even at that quantity. The fat ration will still give us only 2 ounces of butter. The weekly ration of bacon is four ounces; and in the month of October, I regret to say, we expect to have no more than 2 eggs per head of the population. There is no danger, therefore, of luxurious feeding in this country during the war. To sum up, the bulk stocks we hold of such things as wheat and sugar are our line of defence against starvation. Lend-lease supplies have been vital in restoring balance to the diet and so defending us against malnutrition—against the risks, that is, of injuring the health of the children of this country, the spread of disease and the loss of working and fighting efficiency among our people and our Forces. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity of making this statement.

THE OXFORD GROUP.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhad the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether in their appreciation of the high morale of the nation in this crisis they are doing all in their power to further its develop-
182
ment by protecting the efforts of great Christian societies in preaching the Kingdom of God; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I can assure you that it is not without considerable reluctance that I have placed this question upon the Paper and am going to ask your Lordships' attention for it. Our countrymen are always reluctant to speak about these very intimate, sacred things, and we naturally shrink from doing so. I share that feeling; but, after all, we are a self-governing country, and it is our business to see, so far as our voices count, that the administration of affairs is properly conducted and that every interest is protected—all the temporal interests, and the spiritual interests as well. That is part of our duty; and so, although with great reluctance, I venture to ask leave to call your Lordships' attention to this subject.
It deals with the morale of the people of this country in this crisis. I think that we ought to speak with sufficient modesty of our own characteristics, but it must be said that our morale has been a great surprise and a cause of great admiration to the rest of the world. By "morale" I do not merely mean of the troops in the field, of the sailors, even of these wonderful airmen; I do not mean merely their morale, I mean the morale of the people as a whole as they sustained the attacks which were made upon them here in this great city and elsewhere in the country. Where did this morale come from? How is it that this people has been able to show this great spirit? I am sure it comes from a great variety of causes. No doubt it has to do partly with the actual temperament of the people, but I believe that there is behind it all a certain Christian atmosphere, a kind of feeling in the great mass of the people that there is something behind the temporal emergency in which they stand, some obligation upon them which does not depend merely upon their national characteristics, but is indeed a homage and a concession to the spiritual world in which they know that they are moving. I have no doubt myself that that is the case.
I have here a certain "Call" which was spread abroad throughout this country in December, 1939. It was called "A Call to our Citizens." It was supported by 550 civic heads in this

183
country. The phrase "civic heads" is perhaps an awkward phrase; I mean Mayors, Lord Mayors, Provosts and Lord-Provosts in England and Scotland and Northern Ireland, 550 of them, the elected representatives of no fewer than 24,000,000 people. A statement guaranteed by such a body cannot be ignored. They say in this "Call":
"We deeply need leadership of God-led men and women who base their lives on the Christian principles of honesty, unselfishness and faith. Such men and women will not only make the morale of the country impregnable, they will to-day create and spread that spirit which will ensure a just and lasting peace."
I have ventured to trouble your Lordships with that quotation to illustrate what I mean by the morale of the people and whence it comes. In the view of the civic representatives up and down the country it comes from a conviction of Christian principles.
Your Lordships will recognize that from time to time, under His Majesty's suggestion, the people of this country have done what you would expect them to do in such circumstances and with such a feeling; they have attended these great intercession services, quite irrespective of the particular school of religious thought to which they belong, whether they be Church' of England, or belong to the great Roman Catholic Church, or are members of the Church of Scotland or of the Free Churches. I will not say they all thought—that would be an exaggeration—but numbers of them thought that when they felt the need of the inner strength which they demanded they must go and ask for it in the recognised religious houses up and down the country. That was the great demonstration of religious opinion. That was what I mean by the morale and whence it comes.
They are—all of us are—appalled at the wickedness of the world that we see around us. Who would have believed a few years ago how that wickedness would demonstrate itself, how terrible it is to be convinced of it? And even in our own country—I speak with diffidence, but none of us can be satisfied really with the religious practice of the people. They have this Christian atmosphere behind them, and when one knows of all the corruption and dishonesty and evasion of the truth up and down the country none
184
of us can be proud of the result of 2,000 years of Christian conviction. And so our people have turned in their great crisis to the hope of something better, and we have witnessed what to me is immensely important and attractive, a certain weakening of the walls which divide Christian denominations one from another. I do not mean that these differences have been obliterated, that would be over-stating it altogether, but all of us know that one of the great results of the crisis has been to bring religious people together to whatever denomination they belong.
I must apologize to your Lordships if I have dwelt upon this point too long, but it is essential for me to lay the foundation of what I am going to suggest to your Lordships. Of course, like everybody else, His Majesty's Government have responded to this feeling. I am sure that they feel it like everybody else, and your Lordships may have seen it in the Prime Minister's speeches, references which can bear no other interpretation. What ought the Government in that case to do? They ought to cherish and help forward any real effort to promote this moral atmosphere, founded upon the religious conviction of those who are engaged in promoting it, and I have no doubt they wish to do so. But—and this brings me of course to the specific matter—why have they drawn the line when they came to consider the case of what is known as the Oxford Group? I do not understand it. Why have they done that? I do not want to take up a false position. Of course the big moral question with which I have been venturing to trouble your Lordships up to now is far bigger than this particular application of it. Of course it is. But this happens to be the specific matter which is now engaging the attention of Parliament, and I want, if your Lordships will allow me, to apply to this particular case the premises which I have ventured to lay down.
Why have they drawn the line at the Oxford Group? I do not, personally, belong to the Oxford Group. I have a profound respect for them. I know their work, I have been in a position to appreciate how deep it is, how profound its effect, how far-reaching; but, personally, as I say, I do not belong to them. Neither do I say for a moment that members of the Oxford Group are alone in this work which I hope is being performed. Of

185
course they are not. There are other great associations and bodies also anxiously engaged in this work too. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with matters of too intimate a religious character, but the Oxford Group stand for the realization of the actuality of religion. All your Lordships must know that there is always a danger, in the religious forms which I am glad to think we cherish, that what lies behind them may be forgotten. What this body, the Oxford Group, are intent to bring home to their fellow countrymen, and outside their countrymen too, is the reality of religion—the facts of the wickedness of the: world, of God's presence here. That is the essential idea. As to the methods which they have adopted, many of them are open to criticism—I should certainly not deny that—but that was the profound idea. They are presenting to the people who come under their influence the stark realities of the wickedness of the world and the necessity for religion.
Of course, an organization of that kind must have a number of workers, and in the case of the Oxford Group the workers, the headquarters staff, if I may use the military phrase, are all laymen. Not only are they all laymen, but they are most of them young men, not very young, but in comparison, I was going to say with many of your Lordships, certainly in comparison with myself, very young indeed. The reason for that is that it is a relatively new organization, and therefore they have to deal with younger people. They have this body of young workers, and they ask that these young workers, or a certain number of them—I shall tell your Lordships the actual number in a moment—should be reserved from serving in the ranks, in order that they may carry out their work. It cannot be said that the policy of the Government is against the reservation of lay workers. A friend of mine said to me, "The line ought to be drawn at the clergy and ministers of religion; let them be reserved, and everybody else serve." That is a very comprehensible method of drawing the line, but it is not the line which the Government have drawn, or the Regulations have drawn. On the contrary, they have allowed an enormous number of lay workers or lay evangelists to be reserved.
Do your Lordships know the number? Four hundred lay evangelists. I give the figure with the greater confidence because
186
it was contained in an answer which Mr. Bevin gave in another place. I hope your Lordships will allow me for a moment to cite a list which I hold here. These are the different organizations, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to say, at the outset, that I speak of these organizations with the greatest respect. I am not suggesting that the lay evangelists belonging to them who are reserved ought not to be reserved. As I say, I speak of them with the greatest respect. The National Young Life Campaign—three are reserved. The Open-Air Mission—eight lay evangelists are reserved; that is, eight who otherwise would serve: that is the point. The Evangelisation Society—about ten reserved. Spurgeon's Colporteurs Association—twenty-nine reserved. The London City Mission—I am not sure how many of them are reserved, but they have a very large number of lay evangelists. The Army Scripture Readers' Association—about twenty are reserved. I need not go through them all in detail, because that would be demanding too much of your Lordships' time. There are the Pentecostal League of Prayer, the Missions to Seamen, the Seventh Day Adventists; and of course there are one or two of the very great organizations which have a very large number reserved. There are the Methodist Lay Evangelists, the Church Army, the Congregational Union—a very large number of lay evangelists in each case are reserved.
I ask the question, why should the Oxford Group be treated differently? How many do the Oxford Group ask should be reserved? They asked originally for twenty-nine. They only have thirty-one lay workers, and they have no, what I may call, clerical workers. They are all laymen. They asked for twenty-nine, but Mr. Bevin was not willing to give them twenty-nine. They are now asking for eleven. This body who promoted the civic memorial from which I have read a passage to your Lordships, signed by the heads of 550 civic bodies in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the elected representatives of twenty-four millions of our people, ask for the reservation of eleven. Eleven, that is all. These are refused by the Minister of Labour. I think, if I may say so with great respect, to my noble and right honourable friends who are members of the Government, that as they are more powerful both individually

187
and collectively than almost any Government which have ruled in this country, so they ought to be intensely just. They cannot be called to account except by public opinion. They have a vast majority in the House of Commons. Every atom of resistance to them is looked upon by many as disloyalty to the national cause. They have this power and they have profound responsibility. When they say, "We will allow 400 lay evangelists by our own authority, by our decree, but as for this Oxford Group we will not even let them have eleven," your Lordships will remember that, broadly speaking, twenty-nine or thirty are the whole lot, that they now only ask for eleven, and that they are to be refused.
It may be said that if you once allow the Oxford Group what they ask, how are you to resist any body of men who say they represent a great religious cause and want to be exempted? The people who make that criticism have really forgotten the recent history of this subject. The Oxford Group have been under the consideration of Parliament for some years. After the most careful consideration, and, I think, also debates in another place, the then President of the Board of Trade, with the consent of his colleagues, admitted the Oxford Group to be incorporated, and they are an incorporated body under the Board of Trade. They have their regular organization, they have a council and so forth—just what you would expect. It is not a case of anybody coming forward and saying: "I am a religious person and I want to be exempted." There is a great accepted organization with an enormous following up and down the country—those are the people who come before you. It cannot be said they are not properly controlled.
What about their religious character? I have described it, but many people might say, "It is all very well for a noble Lord addressing us to tell us they are of a strictly religious character. Has he no better authority than his own word for it?" I know your Lordships are reluctant sometimes to listen to quotations, but I will trouble you with one or two words. Here is a quotation from a letter of the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. He himself, I know, is very sorry indeed that he cannot be present to-day, but he has authorized me to give this quotation from him:
188
"The Movement—"
that is the Oxford Group Movement—
" is most certainly doing what the Church of Christ exists everywhere to do. It is changing human lives, giving them a new joy and freedom, liberating them from the faults of temper of domestic relationships and the like which have beset them, and given them a real ardour to communicate to their fellow-creatures what God has given them."
That is what the most reverend Primate the head of the Church of England says.
Now I will give a quotation from the Free Churches. This is the resolution which the Free Churches have passed:
"That the Free Church Federal Council deeply deplores the decision of the Minister of Labour to take for war service almost all the small residue of organizing workers of the Oxford Group Movement, who have hitherto been left to carry on its work. The ground upon which the Minister has based his decision—namely, that the Movement is social and not religious—is surprisingly erroneous since the Movement is fundamentally religious and its social activities are merely the consequence of its religious work. At a time when the nation is at war on behalf of the values of Christian civilization the decision of the Minister is gravely to be deprecated as unfriendly to the influences from which those values are derived and by which they are sustained."
I need not dwell upon the enormous importance of a testimony like that from the Federal Council of the Free Churches.
Here is another testimony. This is the testimony of the Church of Scotland, and this has been uttered by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland:
"I have read carefully the statement which you gave me yesterday entitled ' A National Issue.' I have come to the quite definite conclusion that the whole-time workers of your Movement come under the category of ' lay evangelists ' and that therefore the eleven men ought to be reserved."
I apologize to your Lordships for all these quotations. I hope I may be forgiven if I quote, at any rate, one more, which I think is so significant that I ought to read it. This is a testimony from 2,500 clergy and ministers of all denominations petitioning the Minister of Labour. This is what these clergy and ministers of all denominations say:
" We are engaged in a life and death struggle for the freedom to build a Christian civilization. To extinguish the work of the Oxford Group by removing their last twenty-nine whole-time workers would seriously weaken the Christian forces of the whole country Such an encroachment on the religious freedom and spiritual strength of the nation must be viewed with profound dismay by the Christian Church. "

189
I need not worry your Lordships with any further quotations. I hold in my hand the memorial which over 170 members of the House of Commons have presented to the Minister of Labour. Your Lordships are probably quite familiar with it. There is no hesitation about them. They all say—these 170 representatives of the people—that these men ought to be reserved
I confess that when I think of what the cause is, when I think of the overwhelming testimony to the reasons for it, I am astonished at the result, and I am told that the astonishment which I feel is not confined to this country. Your Lordships know, of course, that President Roosevelt is interested in this work. He has also said what he thinks of the value of the Oxford Group. I believe myself that this decision of the Government, although it has to deal with—in bulk but not in principle—a relatively small matter, has produced the most unfortunate effect in our Dominions and in the United States of America. They are stupefied. Why should this effort be stopped, this great Christian moral effort founded upon the religion of Christ? I earnestly hope that the Government will reconsider this. Do not let it be said that they are indifferent to this great: cause. Do not let them be afraid of making a concession, even a concession which is a reversal of their previous decision. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a self-governing country. We have surrendered indeed our rights to the Government, but they know that they depend upon the will and the authority of the people. I have no doubt whatever that all those who take an interest in this subject are of one mind, that these men ought to be reserved. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having troubled you at such length, but I do believe that an issue of this kind is the fundamental background before which we are waging this war. I hope that it may not yet be too late for the Government to make a concession for which so many people have ventured to ask. I beg to move.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, with your permission I wish only to make a few extremely brief comments on another aspect of the issue which the noble Marquess has so eloquently raised. The issue goes, of course, very deep, deeper I think than the mere question of the
190
exemption from military service of some eleven or twenty-nine members of the Oxford Group. In the last resort I suppose it is true that this war is the supreme test of our fitness to survive. It is a formidable thought that whoever wins it will be in a position to shape the pattern of civilization, perhaps for a thousand years. Are we entitled to hope for victory if we are not fit to shape the pattern of a new age, if we do not possess the moral and spiritual vitality to lead the post-war world? We all know what sort of heathenry would be enthroned by a victorious Germany, and we have long claimed that against this we are defending Christendom itself.
Indeed, if we are not defending Christendom we have no spiritual weapons in our hands and we need hardly hope that our material weapons will save us. But if we make that tremendous claim, that colossal claim, that we are defending Christendom, we must surely hope that in the course of the struggle we may become worthy of it. We must surely assume that perhaps the inmost meaning of this war is that it is our last and our greatest opportunity of regeneration through suffering. I do feel that there have been disquieting signs—despite many signs to the contrary, to some of which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred, despite moving passages which we all remember in the Prime Minister's speeches—there has been disquieting evidence of the Government's indifference to the spiritual and moral aspect of the war. The great war-time evacuation from urban areas has thrown, for example, a revealing light, too revealing a light, upon the conditions of religious instruction in our State schools. After every allowance has been made for the work of many devoted teachers and much conscientious teaching, it is no exaggeration, I think, to say that for many thousands of children the name of God is known only as a swear word.
Yet when recently a deputation, led, I think, by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, presented to the Minister of Education the eminently mild suggestion that all children whose parents do not object ought to receive religious instruction from persons competent to give it—that I think is a fair, rough summary of what they did suggest—the Minister immediately

191
took refuge in the familiar smoke screen of polite and non-committal evasion. Picture, my Lords, the pagan analogy. Imagine for a moment a deputation going to Dr. Goebbels to ask if he would be good enough to see that the children of all German parents who did not actively object should receive competent instruction in the Nazi creed. Imagine Dr. Goebbels replying that he must have time to consider the matter, that there were two sides to every question, that there were many difficult and diverse interests to be consulted. Not long ago an influential body of signatories, among them very many of your Lordships, invited His Majesty's Government to encourage the country to devote the one minute's silence before the B.B.C. 9 o'clock news to prayer. His Majesty's Government met the request with a graceful refusal couched in terms, I think it fair to say, which suggested that they conceived it to be their duty to hold the scales evenly between Christians and non-Christians.
It is against the background of that sort of colourless spiritual neutrality that one has to consider the particular question which the noble Marquess has raised to-day. I myself think that that particular issue—and I dare say the noble Marquess will agree—is of less importance than many other kindred issues. I think it is not perhaps in the last resort so important a moral problem as another moral problem with which the Minister of Labour, Mr. Bevin, who has had to deal with the question of the Oxford Group, is specially concerned, that immense moral problem—I only mention this in passing—of the vast disparity in wages paid to the men who make munitions and the men who use them. The Government know, I believe, being regularly informed by the Ministry of Information, that this is perhaps now the chief social problem exercising the minds of hundreds of thousands of plain men and women up and down the country, who are asking themselves whether the moral course would not be to impose some analogy of the Excess Profits Duty on all above the poverty line, so that nobody above the poverty line should be making gains because the country is at war, And they are asking, such of them as are familiar with history,
192
whether it is not true that social democracy after social democracy has collapsed because its leaders lacked the moral courage to invite the masses to accept economic sacrifice.
In comparison with those problems it seems to me that the actual significance of the issue to which the noble Marquess devoted himself is largely symbolic and symptomatic of that general spiritual neutrality which some of us seem to detect behind the facade of this enormously powerful, and therefore, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, this enormously responsible Government. Mr. Bevin, doubtless, has the letter of the law on his side, and strong in the letter of the law he protested, as your Lordships may have noticed, against, as he put it, dragging religion into the controversy—as if religion could be irrelevant to this or any other aspect of a struggle such as that in which we are engaged.
Like the noble Marquess, I am not a member of the Oxford Group, and that despite many courageous attempts by their representatives to amend my ways and to convert me. But I am clear that according to their lights the Oxford Group are doing far more to bring religion to the people than are many ministers of the churches. Mr. Bevin invites their lay evangelists to accept military service and to "take their corner," I think he said, in the war for righteousness. I think there is a good deal to be said for that position, but nothing at all for the implication behind it, that a person who is effectually preaching the Gospel is not most fruitfully and most directly contributing to the actual war effort of the nation. That seems to me to be the really dangerous symptom in this present controversy. In brief, I do not think that this decision will necessarily do the Oxford Group any lasting harm. I think it can be logically and reasonably defended, but I also think it is a disquieting further piece of evidence of the general indifference of His Majesty's Government to that indispensable moral and spiritual effort without which we have no right to hope for victory.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I would like to say a few words on the Motion which is before your Lordship's House. In doing so I speak not merely as a member of your Lordships' House but also as an elder of the Church of Scotland.

193
I would emphasize that fact because we must all recognise that, when we are dealing with questions concerning the moral uplift in the nation and questions of religion, these questions do not merely affect the Church of England but they affect also the Church of Scotland and other great national Churches in this country. I always feel that it is a great pity that here, in this House, we have not got representation from the Church of Scotland and from the other great religious denominations. I always feel that until we have the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and leading men of the Wesleyans, the Baptists and other Churches, we cannot speak, here, as being representative of the religious voice of this country. I hope that after this war one of the post-war planning amendments will be the admission to this House of representatives of other religious denominations besides the Church of England.
I am grateful to the noble Marquess for having brought forward this Motion dealing with the moral spirit of the country. I agree with the noble Marquess that when he speaks of the moral spirit of the country that means not only the morale of those in the Services and wearing uniform but also the morale of all in civilian life who are to-day working for their country in various forms. Somehow or other this debate has got mixed with a body calling' itself the Oxford Group. I believe it is the ambition of the Oxford Group to maintain the high moral spirit of the nation, and I believe it is towards that end that they are working day by day among our people. I can understand that they have, with some justification, a feeling that in this matter of the calling up of the last of their lay evangelists they have had a bit of a raw deal at the hands of the Minister of Labour. They have, I think, justification for feeling that perhaps they have not been treated with strict impartiality and that they have not really received full justice. I say that they have that feeling; but the Minister seems to be surprised at the noise which has been stirred up over this question of the Oxford Group.
Why should he be surprised at the feeling that has been stirred up in the country? It is quite natural. All of us in your Lordships' House, while we may differ on policy, on questions of law, and questions of trade, realize that after
194
all those differences do not go very deep; but when you come to differ on questions of religion and about religion itself, there you are dealing with something that goes to the very bottom of the human spirit. There is no sentiment, nothing which affects a man so deeply as religion. Therefore, any Minister dealing with a question touching on religion, and knowing that it concerns not merely one Church but all Churches in this country, ought to be excessively careful in all that he says and does. I understand that the Minister of Labour invited the opinion of the highest Church authorities in this country and he set it aside and said "I know better." He took the opinion of the highest lawyers in this country and said "I know better." How, then, can he be surprised if he has done something that has caused a stir? No Minister, in my opinion, could ever have dealt with any question in a more clumsy manner than that in which Mr. Bevin has dealt with this question.
I must say that after listening to an account of the work which the Oxford Group are doing, I cannot understand the attitude where it is said that, because this member or that member of the Oxford Group has said this or that, or has said something with which one does not agree, therefore the Group should be treated harshly. I might say the same about the Church of England; I might say that there are things in the Church of England with which I disagree. What about the parson who goes to church blowing a football whistle and who calls himself "the sporting parson"? What about the curate who walks up the aisle with boxing gloves and who calls himself "the fighting curate"? These are "stunts", and there is nothing that I object to in religion more than stunting. Then there are rectors and vicars who have been brought before the Courts and found guilty of some criminal offence. Would any sensible man say that, because of these things, of which he does not approve, the Church of England is not a body worth supporting? I should never forgive myself if I failed to give the Church of England all the support possible simply because there were some things connected with it with which I disagreed. It is doing a great work in this country and should be supported. I say, therefore, that any one who is dealing

195
with the Oxford Group should put aside shallow criticism and think of the good work that is being done.
I have come in contact with the work of the Oxford Group on Clydeside, in the great industrial areas, areas which are the targets of the enemy, areas which have been "blitzed" at least as much as the area around St. Paul's, and perhaps more so. In those areas I have met members of the Oxford Group working day after day and night after night. Government representatives tell the people in these areas that they are in the front line as much as any soldier or sailor. If they are in the front line in these areas, and if these members of the Oxford Group are working in that front line, as I know that they are, why make a fuss about the need for putting them all into uniform? In these areas they sec as much service as many soldiers have seen or ever will see. We must not hurl insults at the Oxford Group because of foolish things which certain of the members may have said, or because they do things which some of us do not like. We ought to take off our hats to them for the work which they are doing in the industrial areas. I know that in the Clyde area there have been several occasions when disputes have arisen between the men and their employers, and when the purely secular trade union leaders have failed to make peace, and strikes have been imminent; but members of the Oxford Group—including, to my knowledge, some Communists and Socialists, as well as other leaders—have brought the two sides together and dealt with them not as masters and men, not as employers and employees, but as human beings, man to man. They have in a number of cases settled these petty disputes which might have given rise to strikes, and by so doing they have helped in a large degree to maintain the continuity of the flow of munitions.
I think that the work which they are doing is invaluable; but, putting aside criticism, let us look at this question not from the point of view of law, not from the point of view of what the Minister of Labour has said, but from the point of view of the future. What are we fighting for in this country? We hope after this war to establish a new order, and that new order will be in the hands of youth; it will be in the hands of the young people
196
who are coming after us. Hitler offers a new order of world domination, and any departure from the new order which he dictates is punished by fear—fear of the concentration camp, fear of the bullet. There is no God in his new order. On the other hand, we offer a new order of liberty and freedom, a new order based on Christian principles and the Christian faith. We have the choice between a new order without God and a new order with God; and I say that any new order put forward by Britain and America must be, and will be, a new order with God. There will undoubtedly be great changes in this country after the war, but those changes, no matter how great they may be, will do no harm if they are made along the lines of the Christian faith. Our task is to see how we can bring the youth of this country into close touch with the Christian faith.
It is no use saying that the Churches will see to that. The Churches can do a great deal, but they cannot stand alone. It is more than 300 years since the Bible was printed in the reign of King James, and ever since then all the Churches have been preaching and teaching incessantly. To-day, however, we are still faced with the empty church; we are still faced with the problem of the empty pew. There are millions of young people in this country to-day who have never heard a word about God in their homes, in their schools or in their church. My feeling is, therefore, that we cannot afford to look askance at any body which is making it its life work to spread the principles of the Christian faith among the young. That is what the members of the Oxford Group are doing; they are working to spread the principles of the Christian faith for the sake of the new order which is to come. If we look at the matter in that way, I am sure that the proper, common-sense, broad-minded view would be to grant the eleven lay evangelists of the Oxford Group exemption from service, because of the good which they are doing among the young by trying to spread the Christian faith.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, as a new member of this House I rise with some hesitation to express views not entirely in agreement with those of the elder statesmen who have addressed you. The fact that I am a churchwarden of two churches, one in London and one in the

197
country, will, I hope, cause you to acquit me of any lack of interest in religion; but I cannot help feeling a doubt whether the exemption of these young "hot gospellers" from military service is really in the best interests of themselves or of their Movement. I cannot help wondering whether it will make their teaching more popular, and I cannot help wondering whether the Army does not stand in at least as much need of their services as does the civilian population. It would be interesting to know what their own view of the matter is. Are they conscientious objectors? If they are conscientious objectors, Parliament has, of course, given them a statutory right to exemption, but subject to strict judicial inquiry and possibly to their taking up other work of national importance.
The logical conscientious objector must. I think, ask himself what the effect would be if everyone in the country had the same conscientious objection as he himself has to military service. Either these young men of the Oxford Group are conscientious objectors or they are not. If they are not conscientious objectors it seems to me that they have no strict title to exemption. If, on the other hand they are conscientious objectors I should like to know whether they will go up and clown the country preaching conscientious objection to military service, and whether that would be in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships' House. Another thing I should like to know is whether the teaching of the Oxford Group is in conformity with the doctrine of the Church of England. I am rather inclined to think it must be from the fact that they are supported by such eminent speakers as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. But if they are in conformity with the Church of England, and if they have any scruples about military service, I think their attention should be drawn to the 37th Article of Religion, which ends:
"It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."
Those are the only points I want to make. I do want to express the opinion that these young men ought to do their duty to the country, and that they might at the same time find profitable occupation for themselves by preaching to their comrades in the Army, some of whom at any rate I
198
think would be very glad to listen to them.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I want first of all to say a few words as to the wider aspects of the Motion moved by the noble Marquess, which draws our attention to the high morale of the nation and to those religious societies which are preaching the Kingdom of God. Probably many of your Lordships, like myself, have read with much interest and profit recently a very remarkable book, English Saga, by Arthur Bryant. You will remember how he points out first of all that the whole of the strength of the old England was based upon the morality of the mediaeval Church and the principles of the Gospel of Christ, and how neglect of these great principles, particularly in the industrial era, led to many of the problems which we now deplore at the time when we were forgetting the importance of the individual soul and the brotherhood of man, and concentrating far too much on the making of profit. He points out that it was Disraeli who aimed to re-establish the great "character-making institutions" which had made her what she was, "the greatest of them being the Church." He realized that we could not go on living on our religious capital, and at the outset of his career he maintained that it was by our national character that we were going to save Europe, and that that was more important than trial by jury or the Great Charter. In conclusion the author also points out that England is now fighting for her life, and in that fight she has fallen back on the rock of her national character. Her hope, her future and the hope of the world, he says, depend not only on her victory but on her ability to re-state in a new form the ancient laws of her own moral purpose.
As has been pointed out by more than one speaker it is the morale, the character and the spirit of our people of every type and in every place, including the "blitzed" areas to which the noble Duke has referred, which has particularly impressed foreign observers when they have come over here. We all know it is the morale and the stability of the people on the home front that is really going to decide this issue both for our own country and for the enemy. So I would maintain that for the winning of the war itself high morale and national

199
character and spirit are the most essential of war weapons. Still more is this so in long-term planning for the peace and the new world order that we are to build. All of us are now realizing that it is because we left God and His principles far too much out of our peace treaties and national and international life during these last twenty years that this second war has come upon us. And if we are to avoid these mistakes again, as we are realizing we must do, is not the only way to go back to God and to His principles? These will be made effective, I am convinced, not only by a few national and international leaders but by whole armies of men and women in all walks of life up and down the length and breadth of our land, who are wholly committed to do His will and who will listen to and carry through His plans and His purpose for the world that He has created. So the value of this debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Marquess, is that it gives us an opportunity of emphasizing clearly and publicly what we all feel to be true, that those who are trained, capable and determined to create and deepen the morale and character of our people are performing the most essential form of national service.
As has already been pointed out by other speakers, it is in the light and on the basis of those principles that we ought to consider the work of these religious societies and the question of the reservation of their lay workers. The question of the Oxford Group has been raised particularly by the noble Marquess and other speakers, as well as being the subject of a debate at considerable length in another place only yesterday. I am sure we realize to the full the difficulty, the delicacy and the extent of the duties which have been placed by Parliament on the Minister of Labour under the National Service Act, but I feel sure, also, that it was the intention of Parliament that he should act judicially, fairly and without prejudice, and in the sole interest of the efficacy of our war effort, in dealing with these matters, and also show clearly to those concerned that he has done so.
I trust most particularly that he will be able to show that there has been no discrimination and no prejudice in this matter. An investigation of over fifty religious bodies has shown that every other
200
movement which is similar in form and activities to the Oxford Group has its lay evangelists reserved, in addition to the lay evangelists of the religious denominations. The case quoted as parallel with the Oxford Group has been the Y.M.C.A. But it is well known that the Y.M.C.A. branch secretaries are not primarily evangelists, but that their primary duties consist in the running of hospitals, gymnasia, boys' clubs and similar organizations. They are in consequence for the most part classified in the schedule of reserved occupations as social workers. In any case, even as social workers, the Y.M.C.A. branch secretaries are all reserved at the age of thirty-five; a number of them who run boys' clubs are even reserved at the age of thirty, and I am sure we are all extremely glad that it is so. But ten of the eleven Oxford Group workers who are refused exemption are all over the age of thirty.
The definition laid down in April, 1941, which governs this matter say that a lay evangelist is
" a man… who has been engaged whole-time by a recognized religious body in religious work analogous to that of a regular minister of a religious denomination and continues in such work without interruption."
Your Lordships must bear with me because I am a layman in the legal as well as the ecclesiastical sense, but I hold in my hand a document drawn up by three distinguished counsel, who state, first, that they have no doubt that the Oxford Group is such a recognized religious body. That it is a body is put beyond controversy by its incorporation in August, 1939, and that it is religious is established with equal certainty by its objects as set out in its Memorandum of Association, the first of which is "the advancement of the Christian religion." They then refer to the judgment of Mr. Justice Bennett in re Thackrah, and point out that whatever may have been the situation at the time of that judgment the whole situation has been in the legal sense transformed by the incorporation of the Oxford Group subsequent to that judgment. I have studied carefully and listened with care to what was said in another place. It seems to me clear that the Government either know nothing about this incorporation of the Group under the licence given most carefully by the Board of Trade in the summer of 1939, or else they entirely disregard it.

201
These learned gentlemen stated further that from the information placed before them, they are of opinion that each of these eleven has, since before September, 1939, been engaged whole-time by a recognized religious body in religious work analogous to that of a regular minister of a religions denomination. May I suggest, with great respect to the Leader of the House, who, I understand, will reply, that as there is a doubt as to the legal position there should be a consultation between those who drew up that legal opinion and the advisers of the Government, and as there is a doubt about the character of the work this also should be referred to the expert advisers of the Minister? A deliberate offer was made, and still stands, by the Lord Bishop of Manchester who intimated on this particular point his willingness to talk personally with every one of these eleven men to satisfy himself that each one of them is doing the kind of work that comes under that particular Regulation.
It has been stated that the feeling in the country is a worked-up agitation. I can only point out, from personal knowledge, that the representations to the Minister are a spontaneous expression of protest by a great many people in all walks of life who are very deeply distressed that this Movement should be crippled in this way. The noble Marquess has already dealt with the point that these Oxford Group leaders are doing work analogous to that of ministers of religion, except that they cannot marry or bury people; but neither can any other lay evangelists who have been reserved, and no single reason has been advanced why these particular men should not be regarded as lay evangelists. I can only state what I myself know. I have been closely identified with these men and their work for over six years. I have seen what they have done in the way of directing and conducting evangelistic campaigns throughout this and other countries, giving their own messages in halls and churches. I know how much of their time is taken up in giving spiritual counsel and advice to those in greatest and deepest need, in personal interviews, and some of them have pastoral care over large areas of England in respect of this work.
Their duties embrace the teaching of the Bible, instruction in the principles of Christian evangelism, the regular conduct
202
of religious meetings, the planning and carrying through of large-scale evangelistic campaigns, which have resulted in heightened morale and increased industrial harmony and efficiency through the propagation of a vital Christian experience, in those areas of which the noble Duke has spoken. For instance, in the East End of London in 1940, in the months leading up to the heavy air attacks, whole-time workers of the Oxford Group carried through a campaign in which 100,000 homes were visited for evangelistic purposes. I can only say for myself, very humbly, that from my connection with them I have gained a deeper and more constant touch with Christ, a new vision, a new way of applying the fundamental principles of our Christian faith to every part of my daily life, and a new power to speak about the things that really matter both to individuals and to larger bodies, though I am very well aware how much I have still to learn in these respects. I know that for thousands of people this particular work has made religion, and God Himself, real for the first time, and I have lived long enough at their headquarters to be able to say that nowhere else have I seen such a spirit of fellowship and team-work, leading to' effectiveness, in the small things as well as the great. Clearly that is work which is analogous to that of a regular minister, and which every minister exists to do.
The noble Earl who spoke last said certain things about these men. Although he is not in his place at the moment, perhaps I should assure the House that I know them personally, and none of them is a conscientious objector, or pacifist, or Fascist, or Nazi. Nearly all of them have been commissioned personally by Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England for this particular work. All that they ask is to be allowed to devote themselves to the work which they have taken up as their life's calling, without hindrance, and in the performance of which they believe they can give much the most effective service. No doubt there is a lot of work to be done in the way of influencing men who would otherwise register as conscientious objectors, but whose willingness to undertake military service has been inspired by these men who wish to continue this work and to be an inspiration to the men who are

203
in the Army. Again, at headquarters, day by day and at week-ends, these men who are in the Forces and have been touched by this movement, numbering hundreds, perhaps thousands, come to gain spiritual refreshment to enable them to carry on, thus heightening morale and discipline in the Army, which is so much needed. Such work cannot continue if all their trained leaders, and the whole council of management, are taken into the Army, and that is something which has not happened to any other body, at least of this kind. I feel impelled to say that, humanly speaking, all this work has been founded and inspired by Dr. Frank Buchman. I have worked closely with him in this and other countries, and I and many thousands of other Englishmen are profoundly grateful for the long and devoted service he has given in the highest and deepest interests of our country.
I have just two quotations which I wish to pass on to your Lordships. They come from a cable sent from Washington about this matter by a Republican Senator and two labour leaders in the United States of America. They say this, among other things:
"Our military and industrial leaders have testified to the indispensable part which Dr. Frank Buchman and his trained workers are playing in the elimination of friction in industry and in creating an invincible national morale."
They then point out:
"We are doing everything in our power to aid Britain's epic fight, and believe that the leaders of Moral Rearmament on both sides of the Atlantic are essential for the victory of our common cause. In ordinary times it would be assumed that such matters were the sole responsibility of the Government immediately concerned. But, since war has so largely merged the destinies of our two countries, any development affecting one affects the other, especially when this has to do with the sum and substance of our Christian faiths. It is our earnest hope that responsible leaders in Britain will see the situation as we do, and allow nothing to impair popular belief in the Christian basis of our present struggle, or to obscure those spiritual issues which are at stake and which far transcend the material"
I think those quotations, coming from official and responsible people, are worth passing on to your Lordships.
It is the work of such religious bodies that I would urge His Majesty's Government to support and extend. I think the highest interests of the nation in its war effort will be furthered by so doing.
204
These men come under the category of lay evangelists which the Minister has drawn up, and they should be allowed to continue their religious and spiritual work. I trust that the noble Lord in his reply will be able to state that the Government do intend to give high moral support to the things that appertain to the Kingdom of God, and that those things will have first place in our national planning both in the coming winter and in the future years during which we have to lay the foundations of a new world order and establish a peace that will endure.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, the debate has really fallen into two parts, firstly, the very wide and important question which the noble Marquess has put on the Paper as to the recognition by the Government of the great importance of spiritual interests in our struggle; and secondly, the particular case of eleven men of the Oxford Group whose calling-up has been deferred for a few months and who have now to be called to the Colours. It has been said that the action of the Government, in deciding that these particular cases do not fall under the provision for deferment, is an evidence that the Government do not appreciate the importance of helping the effort of the great Christian Churches. I think everyone recognizes that we are fighting to retain and restore religious freedom. That is in the forefront of the objects which have brought us into this war, and our Government have recognized, as on no former occasion, the value of these religious influences. The Ministry of Information has a religious division. I will not trouble the House with details concerning it, but among its purposes is to see that spiritual and religious forces are brought into full play to facilitate and widen the influence of the Churches as factors in steadfastness and morale. It is very heartening to see how all denominations have come together in our national struggle, how they have all shared in the day of national prayer; and, indeed, the noble Marquess has recognized as very impressive the demonstration which has been exhibited in those interdenominational and Christian efforts. As the efforts of the Government in these matters have not been called in question, I need not remind the House of many other forms in which special war privileges

205
have been given in recognition of the great work of the Churches.
Unfortunately the other side of the debate has been somewhat obscured by controversies outside this House as to the merits of the Oxford Group and some of the methods which have been pursued. Now that issue is entirely outside what we are discussing to-day. The noble Marquess asked why the line had been drawn against the Oxford Group, and why an effort had been made to stop this Christian work. I will try and convince the noble Marquess that there has really been no differential treatment at all, and that he must not get the idea, from what has been said outside upon entirely different matters, that there has been any selective persecution of this or any other religious body. Another point which has been mentioned by several speakers, including the noble Marquess and Lord Addington, has been the incorporation of the Oxford Group. That incorporation is entirely outside the point. Any group, of seven people can become incorporated, and they can lay down for themselves their purposes which, provided they are legal purposes, are accepted by the Board of Trade. The only quest on which came up before the Board of Trade in this particular matter, which caused the incorporation not to go through just by automatic registration, was whether, because they were not a body for profit, they could drop the word "limited" out of their description, but the fact of incorporation is no evidence as to the objects and motives of those who come together to form a society.
LORD ADDINGTON: Docs not the fact of incorporation establish that the Board of Trade have been satisfied upon these points?
LORD MOYNE: I understand that the Board only look to see whether the purposes of incorporation are legal purposes, and if the application for incorporation complies with that requirement, it automatically goes through. The fact of incorporation does not give any kind of guarantee as to how the work will be done, or whether the work will be efficient, and the fact of incorporation has no bearing whatever on the question of whether the objects which this society laid down for themselves are, or are not, grounds for exemption from national service. Those grounds are laid down partly by Statute and partly by administrative
206
rules made by the Minister of Labour and National Service. Under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act there is exemption—not deferment—for a man in Holy Orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination. This was copied, I believe, from the provisions of the Act in force during the last war. But the Government went further. It was felt that the strict interpretation of that rule was too harsh. For instance, it excluded interdenominational societies because the words said that the persons exempted had to be ministers of a religious denomination, not of a society that was free of any particular denominational work. There were various other matters which had to be dealt with to widen the interpretation of the letter of the law.
Under the law the Minister of Labour and National Service could not deny exemption to anyone whose case was defined in the Act, but he had the power by administrative action to defer the calling up of people who were outside the strict statutory definition. In this matter we have gone far beyond the Act. The noble Marquess mentioned that four hundred people had come in as lay evangelists. That is not provided for by the Act and is a purely administrative matter. The schedule laid down by the Ministry of Labour—a document subject to amendment and extension if there is just cause to alter it—was brought in, I think, last April. In this connexion it provides exemption for theological students and missionary students if they were in training at the outbreak of the war, and it makes provision—this is the important point—for deferment for those who are already religious brothers or lay evangelists and who, for technical legal reasons, do not come within the statutory exemption but are hardly distinguishable from ministers of the various denominations. Lay evangelists reserved must be those who, since September, 1939, have been engaged whole-time by a recognised religious body in religious work analogous to that of a regular minister of a religious denomination. That, I think, shows that the Government are most anxious to cover those cases which really are of the nature of ministers of religion.
The Minister of Labour and National Service has to consider two factors in any application for deferment. He must consider, firstly, the character of the

207
organization and whether it undertakes the sort of work that regular ministers of a religious denomination would normally undertake. Then he has to examine the actual functions performed by the applicant. It has happened that a body qualifies under the first definition but that its lay evangelists who are put forward for deferment fall down under the second test. That has happened in the case of the Seventh Day Adventists. Some of their members have been held to be equivalent to ministers of religion and the body itself has been recognised as coming within the first definition, but others of their lay evangelists have been found as a matter of fact not to be doing work analogous to the functions of a minister of religion. I think it has not been generally recognized that the Minister of Labour and National Service has to consider these functions as a matter of fact in applying his responsibilities to the Oxford Group. He decided last March that men of military age could not be treated as entitled to deferment, but he met the case to some extent by deferring for a few months eleven men nominated by the Group. The idea of this temporary deferment was to enable substitutes over military age to be found.
I think I have made it clear that in this function of the Minister of Labour and National Service no religious issues whatever are involved. It is the work of the individual and not the religious purpose of his association that has to be considered. I was interested to hear the noble Marquess use the words "headquarters staff" and I gather from that, and also from something he quoted in reference to the Free Churches, that they were the organizing workers. I gathered also from something which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, that they really are people who are concerned in organization. If those men were concerned, for instance, in the organization of Church House they would not be deferred unless they were in Holy Orders, and it is no reflection on the work of these people that they were not deferred. They were not deferred because they did not fall within the four corners of the definition.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am afraid I did not express myself clearly. What I was endeavouring to point out was that these men had been released from routine work
208
to do spiritual work, evangelistic work. They are not routine workers. The routine work has been taken over by older people. They are doing spiritual evangelistic work, and any independent investigation would establish that fact.
LORD MOYNE: Each case has to be decided on its merits. The decision has to be taken whether the applicant's work was analogous to that of the functions of a minister of religion. There are many tests which occur to one's mind—whether a man has a definite parish, whether he serves in a particular church or chapel, whether he officiates at baptism and weddings and sacraments. The fact that he did not fall under one or other of these analogies would not necessarily rule him out. Each case has to be considered as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that no reason had been given why these men should not be deferred, but really the burden of proof in all these cases is to establish why they should be deferred. To obtain deferment they must show that they are doing work analogous to that of ministers of religion. That is the governing requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned opinions received from the United States of America, but I cannot believe that the details of our law of deferment can be well understood over there. These men belong to one only of thirty-two groups of applicants for deferment under this provision relating to lay evangelists who have been turned down. Thirty-two other religious organizations have failed to establish the claims of those they put forward for deferment as lay evangelists. Those organizations include Toc H. and the Y.M.C.A., and when I mention those two organizations I am sure your Lordships will recognize that failure to establish a claim for deferment is no kind of reflection on the admirable work which the organizations are doing. I could give a long list of organizations which have applied unsuccessfully. They include Jehovah's Witnesses and the International Bible Students. The cases have been decided on the functions of the particular applicants for deferment.
I think the agitation about these eleven men has really been out of proportion to the importance of their case as compared with the general volume of cases that have come forward. I take it that they, with the rest of the nation, recognize that we

209
are engaged upon a righteous struggle, and, if so, they surely do not feel any conscientious scruples—indeed we are told that they are not conscientious objectors—against playing their part. The House is, I think, in a difficulty to-day because this matter has been brought up by the noble Marquess, whose advice on all matters, and especially on such matters as this, inevitably weighs very heavily, and he has been supported by noble Lords whom we respect and to whose opinions we gladly listen. But it is important that the National Service Acts like any other part of our code of law should be impartially applied. These are only eleven cases which have been brought up to Parliament out of the 7,000,000 people who are covered by the National Service Acts, and I really think that the hours of Parliamentary time passed in another place in debate on this subject were out of proportion to the importance of the issue. I think that the war work of these men matters little in comparison with the necessity that the Minister should be understood by the public to administer the law without any suspicion that he is yielding to those interested in propaganda, to favour or to influence.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to inflict another speech upon your Lordships, but in asking leave, as I am going to do, to withdraw this Motion, I have one or two words to say. The noble Lord who sits behind me seemed to be under the impression that the Oxford Group, or at any rate the representatives of the Oxford Group who have been the subject of discussion to-day, were conscientious objectors. That is an example of the amazing misconceptions which are about. I suppose the noble Lord thinks that because they have got consciences they must also be conscientious objectors. That is an error. So far as I know, they have nothing whatever to do with conscientious objection. I do know that in several cases they have done their best to persuade men who were conscientious objectors not to persist in that view. As to their own personal view in that matter, I doubt whether there is one of the eleven of whom I have spoken who is in any degree a conscientious objector. As re-
210
gards the question of whether the Oxford Group should have been looked upon as a recognized body within the meaning of the Regulation, the quotations which I cited from statements by the heads of various denominations and religious bodies is overwhelming. You cannot get behind the testimony of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Free Church Federal Council, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and countless other people far more entitled to know what ought to be recognized in this respect than anybody else.
It is quite true that the power welded by the Minister of Labour is by virtue of Regulation which he is enabled to issue under the statutory power which he possesses. That makes his case, not better, but worse. It means that he has power to alter the Regulation if he chooses. If he had been able to say to your Lordships: "Very sorry, my Lords, but I am bound by the Statute; even the Government are not above the Statute," that would have been an argument. But all he can say is: "I am bound by the Regulation which I issue under Statute and which I have power to modify under Statute." If it be true—and I do not admit that it is true—that the Oxford Group do not fall within the terms of the Regulation, it is the business of the Minister of Labour and his colleagues to alter the Regulation.
I cannot conceive that the Regulation can be held to be the basis of a strong argument. However, there is no advantage in prolonging the controversy now. We have argued, and I have argued this matter on a technical basis, but it is not technical. That is not the point. The point is: Are you in favour of doing your utmost to help forward this morale depending upon religious conviction? All the rest is quite insignificant. That is the point of the question which I have ventured to bring before your Lordships, and that is the point which I desire, if I may, to impress once more upon His Majesty's Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.