Lords Sitting of 27 January 1942

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

H.R.H. THE LATE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT AND STRATHEARN: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have to convey a Message from the King, signed with his own hand:
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address expressing sympathy with me in the loss which the Royal Family, in common with the nation, has sustained by the death of my beloved great uncle His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. I greatly appreciate the assurance of your affectionate interest in all that concerns myself and my family."

JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.
LORD PORTSEA LORD PORTSEA rose to ask His Majesty's Government if any arrangement could be made for the sending of a shipload of food to Jersey and Guernsey or if they would give facilities for private enterprise to effect the same purpose; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am a little anxious in bringing forward this Motion, for I am fully aware of the inadequacy of the person who brings it forward. I have raised the matter once before in your Lordships' House, and the Government have, I trust, had time for consideration and for a favourable decision. Something must be done. The matter is pressing, very pressing—the starvation of the remnant of a great people, the people of a royal domain, a royal link of over one thousand years, nearly eleven hundred years, a people who are renowned for loyalty and valour in every part of the world where the flag is flown. Thousands of them are now serving His Majesty. Their homes are desolate, their people are starving, body and soul. Think of the effect that that must have not only on the people who are suffering physically, but on those people who are serving His Majesty and perhaps imagining that the islanders are
458
suffering even greater hardships than they are actually suffering, if that be possible.
They are a people small in numbers. Now that a number of growers and such like, honest men, who were making money in the islands, have left, there cannot be above 70,000 or 75,000 people in the whole place. They are, as I say, small in numbers; they are small in nothing else, and they deserve some recognition of their efforts, of their services, of their sacrifices. I think such must be coming, and I ask your Lordships to ensure that it does come. In a few moments I shall be followed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede), who will give the House the benefit of great experience and much persuasive eloquence on behalf of the peoples—aliens for the most part—in Europe who are also starving. I do not want to cut across his line, and I am sure he would not want to cut across mine. I wish him all the satisfaction he can get. My Motion deals with men, women and children of our own blood, and it cries unto God, not for retribution, not for vengeance—we do not want that—but for some justification of fair play, if not of love, to which they have a right, for a people who have always given their best without thought of reward; it asks that we should give them the help which they have a right to claim, according to me, if the hand of timidity does not prevent it. I do not want an Armada sent there: on the contrary, I want food, I want help sent.
It is said that we are going to offer food assistance to Greece. A great newspaper to-day has a leading article on the matter. The Greeks did wonderfully. They faced the foe; they were almost the first to do so. They fought for their homes, they fought for their country, they fought for their families. All honour to them. Our people, my Lords, are fighting for us. They are fighting for their own hearths, for their own homes, and, last but not least, for their own King. A few months ago we read a wonderful letter from a man to his mother. The poor boy has since been killed. It was a letter which stirred the world. There was one sentence in it which perhaps, with its context, does not mean exactly what I think it means. He said:
" Those who fight for England must expect no reward from her."

459
It is a hard saying, and it is not one that I personally believe. I much prefer the statement of one of the greatest men I have ever known who sat in this House and whose son sits now in his place. He said—and I think I remember his saying it—
" Sooner than be a silent witness, which in effect is a willing accomplice, to the tragic triumph of barbarism over freedom, of force over law, the law of self-respect and of honour, I would see this country of ours blotted out from history."
That is my sentiment, my Lords. Those are the views I hold. They are better than the views of those that claim that England will never reward. I think she will.
I cannot believe that the Government will remain indifferent. Here at our very door we have our own people starving, and it is suggested that we send help to aliens, aliens worthy no doubt, but as far from us in blood as they are in feeling and in distance. This morning again, the papers are full of Australia and her demands. The efforts that Australia has made in this war and made in the last war are marvellous—that is the only description I can think of using—splendid, wonderful, self-denying and marvellous, and her people got little reward; they even had to pay their own debt. They demand, and they will receive, because Australia is strong. Surely that cannot be the reason, surely it cannot be because they are strong, but because they are our own folk, for they are of course more English than any of the great Dominions. Can it be that the Government will bow to her, and that they will not assist the weak, and will give them cause to laugh at the weakness of their own country, which is, after all, their own parent?
We have heard an extraordinary account of the debacle at Pearl Harbour, and we are told that in a few weeks there is to be a Court-Martial to get the true story of that debacle. The true story of the handing over of the Norman Islands, which took place now two years ago, is not yet known. Who was our Ephialtes? We shall, I suppose, presumably find him in time. I put no blame, I say at once, on our Prime Minister. He was hardly in the saddle before this act was perpetrated. He had no time to consider the views and Report of the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in the Islands, and I believe that the counsel given by those
460
views was that the Islands, if they were allowed, could defend themselves. They had always done so in the past against a relatively stronger enemy, France. I had the honour of serving in the Royal Jersey Militia at the time of the centenary of the last attack that the French had made on our island. They made it in force and they took the Commander-in-Chief in bed. He signed a surrender immediately and bade his other officers do the same. When the French officer presented himself at one of the forts with the General's orders in his hand and told the officer in command ''We are here thick upon the ground" the officer's reply was "Thick upon the ground are you? Thick upon the ground, then there will be the more to kill." That was the spirit of the islands and it is the spirit that is not yet dead in these islands. If these Commanders with the oath that they have taken before them thought the islands could be defended, or at least could defend themselves, I can see no reason why authority on this side cleared the islands of all arms and ammunition, hauled down the flag, and made a very undignified bolt.
We would have defended our islands; of that I am quite sure; and if we could not have defended them we would have died there. After all, we must all die and none of us can choose the moment or the situation of our death. What death could be finer than that of dying while fighting for your own country, "For the ashes of our fathers, for the temples of our God"? I do not blame the Prime Minister in the least. He was hardly in the saddle. He never betrayed his trust, of that I am sure. His blood had its source in old Normandy, as your Lordships are aware, and many of your Lordships trace from the same course. We affectionately call him by his Christian name or by his last name, but his real surname is a Norman name. He is a dispenser and his roots are in Normandy. I do not believe that any man of that blood would betray his country. There is an old French proverb: Bon sang ne ment pas—Good blood always tells. What did the Prime Minister say in Bermuda the other day? I will read a very short extract. He said:
"When Britain stood alone we did not flinch, we did not weaken. We said 'We will do our duty, we will do our best. The rest we must leave to Providence.'"

461
And what a reward did come. What a lesson it is never to give in when you guard the cause of freedom.
Let no man tell me that the man who could make that speech could be a party to such an act as the lamentable act of giving away these islands. So much the easier for him now to see fair play—a small effort in a great cause—much easier for the Government than for private friends. But if the Government cannot help as a Government, as England herself, then lease or lend me a ship, a small ship. We will undertake to load that ship, we will undertake to man her, we will undertake to take her across the channel and to succour the starving people there—those who know us and who trust us—and we will further endeavour to bring her back, though that might be a more difficult task. I will meet the stereotyped objection. I know it. It is the objection of the chipmunk, that timorous little beastie. It is an argument that might be used in relation to a wild country such as Albania—which I know very slightly—or a country such as Greece, but not in relation to two small islands like Jersey and Guernsey. They are so small that it must be very hard for your Lordships to realize that although there are 1,100 people to the square mile there are only 40,000 people now in Jersey. The islands are so small that there would not be a single ounce of food sent to the island which could not be traced from the ship to the consumer. If the Germans were so foolish, so unwise, as to take the food, what would be the result? It would be but a small consignment, they would not let the ship return and they would get no more food. I ask the Government for their help.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I do not follow the noble Lord into the question of how tar it was possible to hold the Channel Islands, but I would remind him that it was not a military problem as in the days to which he referred. It was notably an air and naval problem, and looking back I suppose that the decision taken was really unavoidable. At any rate that is the conclusion I have come to after discussions with those who have very good reasons for knowing, especially naval authorities. Nor will I follow my noble friend into the question of where the Prime Minister's ancestors came from. I do not think that comes
462
into the question. But I promised the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, in whose diocese the Channel Islands are, that I would try to keep a watchful eye on their interests in your Lordships' House. Therefore I would appeal to the Government to meet the noble Lord's specific requests so far as it is possible.
But at the same time it does fall to be said that the Channel Islands stand in quite a different position from almost every other part of the world's surface. Until Hong Kong was temporarily lost to our new enemies the Channel Islands formed the only considerable part, or well known part of the British Empire, which the enemy has occupied. More than that it is a fact that for centuries they have been the most loyal part of the British Empire. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships, because so many members of your Lordships' House have served ever since the time we were attacked in regions which I know very well—where they are now I have no means of knowing—that nearly every one of the able-bodied men of the Channel Islands who escaped to this country at once joined the Forces of the Crown and nearly all of them are still serving. These brave men are all determined to support us, and bear us no ill will for the evacuation of these islands more than one and a half years ago. Therefore, while I could not join in making this Motion in any way hostile action if the Government cannot meet us, I would venture, in my own name and on behalf of the right reverend Prelate, to urge the Government to give the most favourable consideration they can to the plea of the noble Lord.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I cannot help feeling rather sorry that my noble friend should have raised this question again so soon after he last raised it. I endeavoured then to make it plain to him that this question of possible relief to the Channel Islands was having the most earnest consideration of my right honourable friend. I also tried to convey to him that I could hardly say one single word on the subject without doing real harm—harm possibly to the interests of the Channel Islands, harm possibly to the even greater issues involved, issues of the

463
blockade and of the effect of the blockade on occupied territories in general. The weapon of the blockade is a very formidable and a very terrible weapon. It is also a very cruel weapon and one which takes a long time to operate. It is beginning to operate now. If we do anything, no matter how little, to blunt the edge of that weapon we are doing real harm to our cause in the war. We are in fact prolonging the war, and I would, therefore, beg my noble friend not to press this question too strongly.
He is in fact urging us to send supplies into enemy-occupied territories. Once we begin doing that we may be involved in very difficult and very complicated issues. I can only assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend is considering this question most carefully. I feel the deepest sympathy with my noble friend in what he has said. Quite clearly he feels deeply about the great hardships through which the Channel Islanders are going, and on behalf of the Government, I would fully subscribe to all he said about their magnificent service. It is true that many of their men are now serving in the Fleet. I regret that the noble Lord thought for one moment that the Government could be laughing at the weakness of the people of whom he speaks. I assure him that the Government are thinking, and thinking very earnestly of them, and of their need. I can only say, however, that since he last raised this question there has been no such alteration in the circumstances as enables the Government to take a hopeful view of the possibility of arranging for shipments to the islands. While the matter will continue to receive my right honourable friend's most earnest consideration I cannot on his behalf say any more at the present moment.
LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his very sympathetic speech. It is not a general rule that speeches on behalf of the Government turn things, but his speech has at least shaken my resolution to push this matter as I had intended to do if his speech had not been at all satisfactory. I cannot follow him when he puts the case of the Norman Islands on the same basis as the case of any other part of the world, or of any other people. But that, of course, is a historical matter, and it may be a
464
question of personal opinion. I do thank him for the favourable terms in which he has referred to the islands, and to the islanders. When he speaks of delay in connexion with Jersey and Guernsey he must remember, that it needs only a very short delay and everyone there will be dead. I do not know if any of your Lordships have ever suffered from what I may call real starvation. I trust not; and it may be that many of you may never have seen it. I do not mean starvation extending over one day or two days, or three or four days, but starvation of week after week, month after month. It is under such suffering that a man's belief leaves him, and he feels like Job. We all remember, of course, that all Job wanted to do was to curse God and die. Those are the feelings that take hold of men.
Those are the feelings that come on you—I know for I have tried. As I say these feelings come on you and your hope goes. You require a man's resolution to face the situation and die quietly and like a man. And that is the only alternative that is offered to these islanders. I must admit that it does not satisfy me, and I hope that I may be allowed to raise the point again in your Lordships' House before very long. I do not see the argument of my noble friend who knows a great deal more about military matters than I do—I only served for four years in the last war, and I certainly had enough. To say you cannot fight because the other fellow has got some arm or some instrument better than your own seems to me not to bear out what we were brought up as children to know about Sir Richard Grenville in the Azores. In his case, it was fifty-three ships to one, but that did not frighten him. He had his flag and he sank with it. Things were different, too, on Saint Crispin's Day. Our men at Agincourt did not run away because the enemy were stronger than themselves. That sort of thing has apparently been left to a later date. As I say, I see no argument in that. Furthermore I do not follow my noble friend in his reference to Normandy. I have given him the reference myself and he can follow it up in any standard work on heraldry or lineage. I again thank the noble Duke for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the first Motion which stands in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PORTSEA LORD PORTSEA had the following Notice also on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will cause a sympathetic message to be sent to the people of Jersey and Guernsey in the second year of the occupation of the islands by Germany; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a different and a smaller matter, but it will give great relief and great satisfaction to the islanders of whom I have been speaking if the Government can see their way to assent to what I am asking. The radio does reach the islands, and the B.B.C. broadcasts are received there. It is permitted by the Germans for the very simple reason that anything which is received there by means of wireless cannot get any further. If broadcasts were received at a place like Paris, they might, of course, be sent out again somewhere else, but to permit the reception of wireless broadcasts in Jersey is absolutely and perfectly safe. I want to ask the Government if it is possible for an influential member of the Government—the noble Duke himself would satisfy me perfectly—to let the people there know that they are not absolutely forgotten; that they are not, as it were, regarded as a sort of thistledown in the air. Naturally I want no recriminations; I want no insults.
I want merely a plain statement of things on this side, and a message to tell these people that they are not forgotten, that their services in the field are not forgotten, and also to tell them something of their men here. I would like to say here, that those men were in His Majesty's Service before the evacuation of Jersey. Every able-bodied young man went at once and joined up to serve His Majesty. There were about a hundred men or thereabouts on leave after Dunkirk. The Government left them in Jersey and they are now in a concentration camp in Germany. I heard from the chief of them the day before yesterday. That is the true story of how the men of the island served. If those few words could be sent to the islands by a responsible Minister I have no more to say. I ask it. I almost think that it is a demand I can make to the Government. I do not like the word "demand" because I have no power to enforce my request, out I think the Government, after
466
what has happened, ought to send some words of encouragement to the islands, a word that can give no offence to the Germans, who are well disciplined and who are behaving themselves, according to their code, as well as Germans can ever be expected to behave. Greater praise than that I will not give them. Remember that in the islands they are all free men, all freeholders—there is no conquered blood there—and for the first time in history they are under the heel of these men whom you can hardly call conquerors, because "they could not conquer what was handed over to them: but at any rate they are there under the heels of our enemy. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will share the very deep sympathy felt by the noble Lord for the position of his and our fellow-countrymen in the Channel Islands. No one who knows anything of the history of the Channel Islands is unmindful of the services rendered to the Crown by the men of these islands, both in remote and in recent times, and at the present day their services are again being freely given. The temporary severance caused by enemy occupation can weaken in no way the ties between the islands and this country. We know that the hearts of the islanders are with us, and they know that our thoughts and our hearts are with them. The Government are confident that our fellow-countrymen who remain in the islands realize that the Government, though they have not been able to address them directly, have not forgotten them. Several broadcasts, which it is hoped have been of interest to Channel Islanders, have been included in the general programme of the B.B.C., some of them quite recently, and I am given to understand that there will probably be others.
But the question of whether a direct message from the Government here should be addressed to the Channel Islands is one which I think quite clearly requires very careful consideration. At the present moment the islanders have, I gather, almost unrestricted use of their wireless sets. For us to advertise the fact that we intended to broadcast a message to the Channel Islands might well have the effect of having the use of wireless in the islands prohibited, which would be a very grave addition to the hardships which the

467
islanders are suffering already. If it were the intention of the Government to send a message it would clearly be impolitic in the highest degree for me to make any announcement of the fact in advance. I can only, therefore, assure my noble friend that this matter has not been lost sight of. As I said before, the Government are conscious of the really cruel time through which the islanders are going, and if there is any way of alleviating their lot the Government will be very careful to do what they can, but at the same time not to do anything which would aggravate it.
LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke very sincerely for the remarks he has made. It seems to me it would be possible in a speech, say by the Prime Minister in Parliament, for a reference to be made to the islands, and as such to be printed and broadcast. It would not be in any sense a direct message to the islanders, but it would cheer them to know that in this great assembly of the nation their name was mentioned and the fact was broadcast. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FOOD SITUATION IN EUROPE.
LORD PONSONBY OF LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether any report can be issued with regard to the famine situation in European countries allied to us in the war and whether any projects for controlled relief are now under consideration; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Portsea made an appeal in his speech on the first Motion which I am sure touched the House. I intend on rather similar lines to make a rather wider appeal. I am not surprised that my noble friend was not satisfied with the reply he got from the Government. There are various categories of replies, from the quite unsatisfactory to the hopeful. I notice he was told that the matter would receive the Government's most earnest consideration. Well, that is slightly better than just consideration" and "careful consideration," but I do not think it is as good as that for which I shall ask, which is immediate consideration. In reply to his second Motion the
468
noble Lord was told—I thought rather low in the scale of consideration—that the matter would not be lost sight of. That is the lowest you can get. I want to ask the Government some questions, and I want them to give us some information with regard to the very serious condition throughout Europe of the starving populations. I do not want to ask for anything that the Government may consider it inadvisable to make public, but I do want to feel that they have sufficient knowledge to make them understand that this is no light matter, but rather one that ought to have very careful attention turned to it.
I will just refer to some of the countries concerned. I will take first Belgium because it is, after all, the closest to us, and we have had authoritative declarations from representatives of that country. Belgium, be it remembered, is dependent in normal times on about half its food supply being conveyed to it by sea, and M. Pierlot, the Belgian Prime Minister has said in a statement in the Sunday Times of last Sunday that Belgium more than most invaded countries suffers at present from want of food. The population, he said, is in a state of famine, which even now is leading to very serious consequences, so far as public health and the future of youth are concerned. It looks as if this situation may turn into a catastrophe towards the end of this winter. And an ex-Ambassador to Brussels from the United States, who recently visited the country, declared that the condition of the people is nothing short of harrowing, more especially of the children.
I should like some information with regard to Poland. A Commission went there with a view to distributing food, and by all accounts was successful in saving the lives of a large number of children. I should like to ask whether that Commission operates still, or whether its activities have been either stopped or suspended. Norway is in want of food. Spain, as we see from the declaration of General Franco to-day, is in want of food; and perhaps the most serious case that has been brought to the information of the public at large is that of Greece. Greece, too, has been dependent for about half its food supply on ships and sea-borne trade. If the war lasts another year one-third of the population of Greece will die from lack of food. Medicines and surgical appliances are not procurable,

469
People are falling daily in the streets of Athens from starvation. The Chairman of the Greek Red Cross in London, Dr. Cawardias, has reminded us that the Greek Merchant Navy—remarkable for so small a nation—is now bringing food to Britain, but not to Greece, and he added:
"The grand defence made by Greece was a great contribution to the war effort of the Allies, and we must not allow it to be said in future times that the reward for her heroic stand against aggression was starvation."
I see that from 20,000 to 30,000 tons of foodstuffs a month are the minimum required. A single ship from Turkey recently, carrying relief, ran aground, but I dare say the Government will be able to assure us that the loss has been made good and that some supplies are entering this territory which is subject to such a severe strain of malnutrition and starvation.
I do not want to cover the whole ground—in fact I could not—the Government know the facts far better than I do; but may I assure them that help to these populations cannot be postponed until after the war as that would mean condemning thousands chiefly children, to death? By no stretch of the imagination can any responsibility or blame be cast on these unfortunate people who find themselves in this tragic plight. I have only given the major instances, but the danger of pestilence and famine stalking through Europe is something that cannot be regarded with indifference. The matter is urgent. Before the conclusion of the last war, between the years 1917–18 and 1920–21 the epidemic of septic (at that time called Spanish) influenza carried off in the countries of the world 27,000,000 people—a good deal more than twice the casualties in the war itself—not because of the virulence of this particular disease, but because of the weak powers of resistance of underfed and starving people. Casualties of this description are every bit as fearful to contemplate as casualties in war itself.
I want to say just a few words about the methods. Of course the object must be to prevent the food falling into enemy hands. There was, as I have said, a Commission for relief in Poland which successfully distributed food, and I believe saved a number of lives. I should like to know whether that Commission still exists. In the last war, under what was known as the Hoover system, relief
470
was given to occupied Belgium and Northern France without any military advantage to the enemy. The International Red Cross, which supervises the distribution of food to British prisoners of war, in spite of obstacles operates satisfactorily. If it is a matter of the relief being controlled by observers, although Americans are not available now, there is no doubt that Switzerland would provide willingly those who would act to check the distribution in order to prevent anything like the plundering of it by the enemy.
I do not apologize for bringing this matter forward. It does not directly affect the conduct of the war, perhaps, and it is hardly controversial. I do not believe any one will resent a purely humanitarian question being raised even in the midst of the most widespread slaughter that the world has ever witnessed. Whatever schemes for the future there may be—and there are many being studied, produced, elaborated and drafted for the new world and the new Europe; I receive two or three a week; I have never compiled one myself—and however people's attention ought to be concentrated on what will be the outcome of the war and what can be done with the victory, one thing certain is that on the coming generation this fearful burden of trying to turn humanity from barbarism into some sort of civilization again is going to fall. When we in this House have all passed away in a few years' time the coming generation has got to take up this gigantic task. Therefore we may well concern ourselves very specially with the children of to-day and sec that they are not allowed to grow up maimed, crippled, dispirited, and children of despair.
I am not asking the Government for any cut-and-dried solution of so vast a problem, but I hope they are not going to dismiss it by saying that it is Germany's responsibility and that we have nothing to do with it. We can abuse the Germans and Hitler, but that does not feed these children. The point is, are we going to take any initiative, are we devising any plans, do we feel the responsibility sufficiently acutely to realize that there is no time to be lost, and that it is a matter of urgency? While I am not asking the Government to inform us to-day of any particular schemes, I do venture to hope that I may hear from them that they are devoting their

471
attention to projects for bringing relief, under proper control, in order to meet the tragic suffering of these wretched people. I beg to move.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add something from a rather different point of view from what the noble Lord opposite has just said. I agree with the majority of your Lordships that it is of paramount importance that we should win the war, and that no action of ours should be taken which should seriously or really jeopardize our victory. At the same time I would venture to claim that in winning the war we must include the retaining of our friends and the retaining of the good will of our Allies. I do not think that we can completely separate the idea of victory from the state of the different countries in Europe after the victory is won. The noble Lord has already given your Lordships some information and asks for more from the Government as to the extent of the famine. I do not think it can have escaped your Lordships' attention that at the meeting of the Inter-Allied Conference in London on January 13, about retribution, every one of the representatives of those Powers, in their speeches, dwelt on the famine, or the starvation in different degrees, from which their countries were suffering. It may be of interest to recollect that, taking Belgium for example, that country imported two-thirds of its cereals from abroad, up to the time of invasion. Most of the imports came from the United States of America and from Australia, and Dr. Bigwood, who is the special expert in the Belgian Ministry in this country says that Belgium imports regularly—that is to say, on a pre-war basis—four million tons of foodstuffs, and this was stopped by the invasion.
I think we have also to remember that Belgium, Greece, Norway, Holland and Poland have all suffered invasion, with the train of misery, famine, disease, and starvation following invasion, on behalf of the cause for which we are all fighting. Their sufferings, the famine and the disease which accompanies famine, as we found in the last war, have got steadily worse, and will get steadily worse unless some steps are taken to find a remedy. I was very much touched by what the noble Lord, Lord Portsea, said with regard to our fellow-countrymen in the
472
Channel Islands. I believe that the same argument applies to those whom we call Allies, for we are all fighting on the same side on behalf of justice and freedom. A common cause unites us all, and, because some of those who were fighting in the common cause have been put out of action, that does not free us from our responsibility for doing what we can to help them in their time of trouble.
I entirely agree that the responsibility for the Belgians, the Greeks and those in the other occupied territories is Germany's responsibility—Germany's responsibility under International Law—but I am sure that your Lordships know well enough that such a consideration does not in practice weigh much with our enemy. It is a question of interest with our enemy, and it may not be to the interest of Germany to feed these unhappy people unless it is to prevent typhus, pestilence and a great contagion covering Germany as well as the rest of the world. We are influenced by higher considerations than those which influence our enemy. I need not touch on them. But we are also influenced, I claim, by a consideration of our interest. The despair of the Belgians, the Poles, the Greeks, the Norwegians and the Dutch, is not to our interest. The inability of those people in the occupied territories to resist the German Army, their inability to resist when the time comes that we can call on them to resist, is not to our interest, nor is it to our interest that they will be, so far as they survive, an exhausted people unable to make any contribution to the reconstruction of Europe, to the terrible liability, when it comes of the rebuilding of Europe—that cannot be to our interest after the war.
I appreciate what has been said, and what is commonly said about the blockade. I appreciate what the noble Duke said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Portsea, that it is a formidable weapon. It is not exactly a spectacular weapon, for its victims die miserably, and they do not have the sensational death that comes from other means of warfare. It is indeed a formidable weapon, but I appreciate its point. I would ask that we should not look at the situation which confronts us only from the point of view of economic warfare. That, I venture to suggest, is taking a short view with regard to our cause, and the victory of our cause.

473
Taking a long view, I suggest that it may well be that the blockade may triumph but our Allies may be lost. We have to think of the risk of any break in the blockade, any interruption of the blockade, in helping our enemy. I wonder whether your Lordships realize how very modest a measure of interruption of the blockade has at any time been proposed. Mr. Hoover's original proposal, made more than a year ago, only envisaged a total quantity for all the occupied territories of 140,000 tons of foodstuffs per month. A total quantity of 1,400,000 tons is required for the consumption of Germans per month. Suppose 140,000 tons, distributed throughout the occupied territories, were to be taken by the Germans, it would only save them three days in their food.
The new proposal—or rather the latest proposal, it is not very new—made by Mr. Hoover, is of a still more modest kind. It involves soup kitchens for 2,000,000 children and 1,000,000 adult unemployed—soup kitchens at which the food is to be taken on the spot. It involves a contribution from Germany, permission from Britain to allow a certain quantity of soup stock and special food for children, and guarantees with regard to the security of both native and imported food, and Belgium is to finance the whole scheme. I know that I shall be told, and quite properly told, that the Germans are not to be trusted. I think that, as a general principle, is true, but I suggest that we have a right, when we are asked whether the Germans can be trusted in a particular department of controlled food reliefs, to consider the experiences of the last war to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has referred. In the last war eleven billion pounds of food were sent to Belgium and consumed entirely by the Belgian people. The British Government paid 100,000,000 dollars and the French Government paid 200,000,000 dollars. They would certainly not have paid such vast sums if Germany had profited in either a military or economic way.
I should like to call the attention of your Lordships to the support which the controlled food relief scheme had throughout the relevant part of the war from M. Clemenceau, "the Tiger," and from Mr. Lloyd George, the leader of this country to victory, and to the special testimony which the Minister of Blockade, the noble
474
Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, gave to the Americans who were responsible for the control and distribution of the food. The noble Viscount, then Lord Robert Cecil, said on February 14, 1917, that the fact that for twenty-eight months, up to that period, they had kept alive 10,000,000 people without a single serious hitch in the machinery of purchases, transport and distribution showed what their organization had been. He said also that:
"When first proposals wore made in Oeober, 1914, for the importation of foodstuffs into Belgium after the fall of Antwerp, these proposals were made directly counter to every dictate of military prudence. The natural feeling of people here was, and long continued to be, that the Germans were in complete control of Belgium, and how could a dozen or two neutrals safeguard the supplies imported?"
He said further that the only thing which made this titanic effort successful and possible, was the absolute confidence which Mr. Hoover and his colleagues had inspired in all the Allied Governments. I suggest that such powerful witness is a very important factor to weigh at the present time.
I think it is also worth remembering that, so far as the safe entry of food into countries controlled by Germany is concerned, we have a right to glance at the situation of prisoners of war. Every prisoner of war, British, Colonial or from the Dominions, who is either in Germany or in occupied territory, has a right to receive as his due, and does receive—sometimes after delay but in the end does receive—10 lbs. per week of food and tobacco. That means that hundreds of tons of imported foodstuffs and tobacco do get to British prisoners of war in prison in the midst of Germany. I would venture to claim that there is some analogy between our Allies who have suffered very much in the common cause and have been temporarily put out of action, and our own fellow-countrymen who are prisoners of war and also temporarily put out of action—that there is something to be said for doing what we can to get provisions to them.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would venture to ask for a very favourable consideration, a very sympathetic consideration by His Majesty's Government, of this need, especially because it is right, as I believe; and because the risk, as I believe—and I hope my arguments have given

475
some evidence to justify my belief—is small; on grounds of humanity, on grounds of British interests, taking the long view, and on the ground of the obligation, under which as a people we are, to our Allies who have suffered in the common cause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who introduced this question, has painted a very pitiful picture of the situation in Europe to-day, which I am quite certain will have been exceedingly moving to all your Lordships. He has expressed the view, as I understood it, that whatever risks may be involved, His Majesty's Government should agree to relax the blockade, or as he put it in the words of the Motion, to consider "projects for controlled relief." I am quite certain that there will be no noble Lord in this House who will not sympathize with the motives which have inspired my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, even though some of them may feel that they cannot support the actual proposition that he has put before your Lordships. I can, at any rate, assure him and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who followed him, that His Majesty's Government certainly regard this as no light matter, and that the idea of starving populations is quite as dreadful to them as it is to everybody else in this country.
The real truth is, of course, that we all in this country hate war. We think it vile; we think it detestable; we avoid it whenever it is possible for us to do so because we know it brings with it just this sort of horror. If His Majesty's Government are not able, at the present time, to do what the noble Lord asks it is because we, and, I believe, with us the overwhelming mass of the British people, think that there is something even worse than war, and that would be the victory of our enemies. That would—and I should have thought this would be common ground with everybody—perpetuate the sufferings which people in Europe are enduring now and would hand down a legacy of conditions which would amount to little more than slavery to their children and their children's children. That, we believe, would be the end of civilization as we know it. It would be the end of all that this country
476
has gained in seven hundred years of patient struggle and effort. To avert so appalling a result we here—and, I believe, the people of the occupied countries—are willing to endure temporary sufferings, however severe they may be.
Of course, the blockade is an odious weapon—everybody thinks that. But it is one of our strongest weapons, and it is almost our only definitely offensive weapon at the present time. Even if it is imperfect in its effects—and it is certainly not altogether perfect or complete—it has already, I think, had a very material and, possibly, a profound effect upon the resistance of the Germans. What the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester are, in effect asking us to do, and asking of course with the highest possible motives, is to blunt that weapon if not actually to throw it away. What would be, in effect, the result of that? It would mean, first of all, that we might risk actually losing the war. If not that, at any rate, we should risk seriously prolonging the war with all the miseries which are connected with war. That is a fact which all those in this country—the noble Lord and others—who suggest the relaxation of the blockade must face. The relaxation of the blockade is likely to mean a prolongation of the war, and in my view—and I put it forward with deference to your Lordships—however well-intentioned such action night be it would not be in accord with the true counsel of humanity, for I believe that ultimately both we and the inhabitants of the occupied countries would bitterly regret it.
Lord Ponsonby, as I have said, painted a very black picture, and one had the impression when listening to him, that everyone in the occupied countries—or a very large proportion of the populations—was starving or on the edge of starvation. I certainly would not wish to under-estimate the suffering which people are undergoing in Europe to-day. But if the impression to which I have alluded is the noble Lord's own impression also, then I believe it is not correct. In occupied Europe at the present time there are certain features which are, I think, common to all countries. In the rural districts, with certain notable exceptions, primarily Greece, to which the noble Lord referred, and certain areas of Yugoslavia which are normally deficient in production,

477
and certain barren pans of northern Norway, there is at present no considerable shortage of food. Of course the populations are suffering in other ways, but they are not suffering seriously from lack of nourishment. I understand, as the result of inquiries which we have been able to make, that out of a total population of 130,000,000 in Occupied Europe, including occupied France, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Greece, about 60,000,000 are living, if not at the pre-war level, at any rate not very much below it.
When you come to the urban districts, of course the position, as the noble Lord has said, is not nearly so good. Even there, however, there are large sections of the population which, by one means or another, by hook or by crook, manage to get additions to their official rations. Clearly, however there is in these urban districts under-nourishment, and in some places sporadically it is very great. To take individual countries, I believe it would be right to say that those who at present are suffering least—by which I do not mean not suffering at all—from food deficiency are Holland, Czecho-Slovakia and Norway. In those countries, although clearly the standard of life is below what it was before the war, still, broadly speaking, there is—except in certain cases—not serious under-nourishment, for distribution is fairly efficient and the workers are receiving certain extra nourishment, no doubt because they, greatly against their will, are being used by the German Government to produce materials of war.
In Belgium and Occupied France the position is probably rather worse—in Belgium considerably worse. Belgium, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has already said, is a country which, normally, is largely dependent upon imports, and, undoubtedly, in the towns of Belgium there are considerable sections of the urban population who arc, at the present moment, to a greater or lesser degree chronically underfed—a terrible thing to contemplate. France should be in a happier situation, because France is normally comparatively self-supporting, but here the cause of the shortage appears to arise partly from maldistribution and partly from the demands which are made upon the population by the occupying German Army which, like a barbarian horde, lives on the country in which it is situated. The main areas of suffering
478
probably at the present time are Poland and Greece. Those are the worst of all. About Poland it is very difficult to get any very accurate information, but I think it is almost certain that in Warsaw and in others of the big towns there are many people who are going short, and some people who are going very, very short indeed But I would say this. That result, I think, is due not so much to the shortage of the production of the country as to the deliberate, fiendish policy of repression which is imposed on that country by the occupying German Power for the purpose of grinding down and destroying the national spirit. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked for information with regard to a Commission for relief in Poland, and he asked if it were still in existence. I would like, if he will allow me, to make inquiries with regard to that point, and communicate with him. I am afraid I could not answer him on the spur of the moment.
To sum up, and in a very simple form to give some statistical account of the position in these countries, the position up to the latest date available in terms of daily caloric intake, as compared with a normal requirement of 3,000 calories, is a follows, and it will give an idea of the comparative position in these various countries: Czecho-Slovakia, 2,300; France, 2,300; Belgium, 1,900; the Netherlands, 2,250; Denmark, 3,100 (over normal); and Norway, 2,500. So that noble Lords will see that in most of these countries the caloric intake amounts to something between four-fifths and five-sixths of the normal. But that does not mean, of course, that in certain areas within those countries there is not considerable distress and hardship. I am anxious to stress that because I do not want noble Lords to think that I am painting too rosy a picture of the situation. I have tried to give these facts objectively, and I realize very fully that they do not paint a very pretty picture. They certainly give us no ground for complacency at all; but I do not think that they show a situation quite so black, taken all round, as that which was painted by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. There are people in many of these countries who are undoubtedly suffering, but that alas! is the inevitable concomitant of war. Here in this country the British people have suffered too in other ways. They have been blasted, they have been buried,

479
they have been burnt, they have had their houses wrecked, and they have had their property destroyed, but that has not weakened their resolution to resist the enemy; on the contrary, it has stiffened it. And equally I believe that the Allied people who are suffering hardship of a different kind will be stiffened to endure it.
There is one country, however, which was mentioned by both the speakers in this debate, which does come, I think, into rather a special category, and that is Greece. Greece is in a particularly unhappy situation. The Germans do not need Greek labour, and therefore do not need to feed Greek labour, and they no doubt think that they can by bullying and battering this small country destroy its heroic spirit. And there is no doubt that the people in Greece at present are suffering appalling privations. Where other countries are suffering want, they are the victims in many areas of definite famine, and I have heard very similar stories to that which was told by Lord Ponsonby of people falling dead in the streets of Athens from sheer starvation. It may well be felt, I think, that in this very special case, which is unfortunately worse than the others, something ought to be done to alleviate what amounts almost to a martyrdom; and especially the martyrdom of an heroic people to whom we ourselves owe so much. That is a matter which must concern His Majesty's Government, as it must concern all your Lordships. The question has indeed during recent weeks been under very urgent consideration in conjunction with the Government of the United States, and I am to-day in a position to make the following statement, which has also been made by the Minister of Economic Warfare in another place.
As the House is aware, His Majesty's Government have always refused to allow foodstuffs to be shipped through the blockade, and thus relieve the enemy of his legal and moral responsibility for feeding the people whom he has enslaved. This general policy, which is also the policy of the United States Government, remains unchanged. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government and the United States Government have viewed with increasing dismay the appalling conditions in Greece. Despite their undoubted ability to do so, the German Government
480
have done practically nothing to meet the situation created by the pillage and extortion of their Armies in the spring of 1941. They have shown themselves quite indifferent to the fate of the Greek population, no doubt because the industrial resources of Greece are too small to be of any value to the German war machine.
His Majesty's Government and the United States Government are accordingly prepared to authorize a single shipment of 8,000 tons of wheat to Greece, to be applied, under the auspices of the International Red Cross, in relief of the present emergency. While we shall do our utmost to expedite this shipment, I should warn the House that, besides arranging for the supply of wheat, it may take some little time to arrange shipping and the necessary safe-conduct from the enemy. This is in addition to the permitted shipment from Turkey of foodstuffs of a type which Turkey does not import. His Majesty's Government and the United States Government nevertheless continue to maintain in the most categorical manner that it is incumbent upon the enemy to feed the countries occupied by him, and their general policy in this respect remains unaffected by the exception which it has been found necessary to make in the special circumstances now prevailing in Greece.
I am quite certain that that statement will be welcomed by all noble Lords in this House. The peculiar horror of this Greek situation, I think, evidently justifies assistance from us to a country to whom we owe so much in the past and at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, gave some figures which seemed to show that this would not meet the needs of Greece. I would say this. We must sec the result of this action of the Government first. We do not know yet whether these 8,000 tons will in fact reach the Greek population. This is an experiment, and I trust it will succeed. I cannot go any further than that today, and I would in particular draw the attention of the House to the last paragraph of the statement which I have just read. Whatever view may be taken in regard to the special case of Greece, there is one thing which is certain. We must not abandon the general principle of the blockade. Were we to do so, we should only fatally injure our prospects of

481
victory, we should weaken the stranglehold we have on the enemy, we should bring to naught, or might bring to naught, all the sacrifices that we, the Allies, have endured during the last two years. That would be the most criminal folly, both for them and for us, and it is a folly of which His Majesty's Government at any rate will not be guilty.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord who has replied on behalf of the Government for the very full and detailed speech he has given us. He has recognized the spirit in which I raised this matter, and I am obliged to him for the way he has replied. While fully aware of the gravity of the situation, he has perhaps slightly mitigated the picture again. As to whether the pronouncement he has
482
made with regard to the relief to be given to Greece will suffice, I should require: further opportunity to consult with those who are better acquainted with the conditions than I am. Certainly from the knowledge that has been given to me, the amount proposed would be very inadequate in present circumstances. It might have done some months ago, but it is an illustration of how delay increases the burden and aggravates the situation. I hope that without giving any sort of advantage to the enemy, under a proper system of control by the International Red Cross, further relief may be given in other cases. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.