Lords Sitting of 21 July 1942

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

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, this is a short Bill which is concerned with the removal of certain administrative difficulties at Greenwich Hospital, some of which have only recently come to light. In these days, when our minds are occupied with far more vital and important matters, a Bill of this kind may not appear to have much importance attached to it, but unless the difficulties are removed or remedied hardships will fall upon certain servants of the State who deserve well of their country. Upon this ground I commend the Bill to your Lordships. In recent years Acts of Parliament have been passed giving members of the Civil Service certain rights and privileges with regard to their pensions, and it is chiefly in this respect that we are concerned under the Act of 1865, which charged the Admiralty with the duty of acting as trustees for His Majesty for Greenwich Hospital. We have certain powers, but the language of these Acts, we are advised by the Law Officers, precludes us from extending to our servants at Greenwich the same advantages, rights and privileges as are enjoyed by civil servants employed in similar capacities in other Government Departments. It is in order to remedy this, and to assimilate conditions of our servants in Greenwich Hospital to those which exist in other Government Departments that this Bill is required. I hope that, with that short explanation, your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Bruntisfield.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships are probably aware this might be described as a hardy annual which is presented to Parliament every year after the passing into law of our own Finance Bill. I do not think that there are any points in the Bill which need explanation, but perhaps I should inform your Lordships that Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 confirm Resolutions passed by the Tynwald on April 21, 1942, and 16th June, 1942, increasing and continuing the duties on spirits, wines, sweets and tobacco. This reflects increases in our own Finance Act of this year. Clause 5 confirms a Resolution passed by the Tynwald on June 16, 1942, continuing those annual duties which have not been increased. I do not think there is anything more that I need say about this familiar Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Construction of principal Act.
.—The principal Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have effect as if:
(a) After Section twenty-five there were inserted the following section:
Rights over against mortgages in cases to which Section 25 of principal Act does not apply.
'25A.—(1) This section applies in any case where at the relevant date in any year in which an instalment of contribution is payable the interest of a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory property is subject to a mortgage or mortgages, such case not being one in which Section 25 of this Act applies.
(2) In any case in which this section applies, the contributor shall in respect of his net

911
liability for the instalment of contribution payable in the year in question be entitled to be indemnified by the mortgagee or mortgagees under the mortgage or mortgages in question to the extent of a rate in the pound upon the amount of the annual interest payable by the contributor to such mortgagee or mortgagees for that year, which rate in the pound shall be the instalment rate for the year in question unless that rate when applied to the amount of such interest, would yield a sum exceeding one-half of the net liability of the contributor for the instalment of contribution payable in that year, in which case the rate in the pound shall be a rate which, when applied to the amount of such interest, would yield a sum not exceeding one-half of such net liability. Provided that if there shall be more than one mortgagee entitled to receive interest for that year under any such mortgage the share of the indemnity to be borne by any one of such mortgagees in respect of that year shall bear the same proportion to the total amount of the indemnity in respect of that year as the amount of the interest payable to that mortgagee for that year bears to the total amount of the interest payable under the mortgage or mortgages for that year:
(3) In this section:
The expression "mortgage" means any charge, lien, floating charge, debenture, debenture stock, or like security on any property (including in that expression floating assets) for securing money or money's worth other than a security which can be discharged upon less than three months' notice;
The expression "mortgagee" has a meaning corresponding to the meaning of the expression "mortgage"; and the expression "the instalment rate" means the rate in the pound at which in the year with respect to which the expression is used the instalment of contribution is levied in pursuance of the provisions of Sections twenty and twenty-two of this Act.'
(b) In paragraph (ii) of Section twenty-seven and subsection (2) of Section thirty-three and subsection (15) of Section ninety-six after the words "Section twenty-five" there were inserted the words "or Section 25 A"; and
(c) In subsection (2) of Section ninety-eight for the words "Section twenty-five of this Act shall in its application" there were substituted the words "Section twenty-five and Section 25A of this Act shall in the application of each of them", and in paragraph (c) of that subsection after the words "subsection (8)" there were inserted the words "of Section twenty-five."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the Committee stage of this Bill I read carefully the replies of the Lord Chancellor, particularly those dealing with the Amendments put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I have further consulted authoritative legal opinion. As a result I have felt compelled to raise the matter
912
at this stage—particularly the position of the mortgagor—and, therefore this Amendment stands in my name to-day. I do this first because it is clear from the Official Report that the main opposition to the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount was on the ground that only a portion of the field involved was covered by the Amendment, and that of itself was held to condemn the suggestion irrespective of the merits of the principle. The Amendment I offer to-day is designed to remedy this position. It does not involve any sacrifice by the State. It in no way reduces the amount of money which the State will receive. It merely facilitates the collection of the contribution which the State requires. There are already many instances where contributors have been unable to pay, and it is understood that prosecutions have had to take place. All this increases the amount of work to be done under the Bill.
My Amendment aims at correcting an injustice as between two classes of people affected by the Bill; and I repeat that, were it to involve any sacrifice by the State, I should hesitate to ask for the indulgence of your Lordships in moving it to-day. It is clear to those who have taken the trouble to study the problem, however, that something which appears complicated is really very simple, and that what should be the guiding principle in this matter has been impinged upon by exceptions. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor was able to object to the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, by pointing out that that Amendment would apply only to a portion of those affected by the Bill. It is for that reason that I venture to bring forward this Amendment to-day, and to emphasize that its aim is to apply to all cases which arise in this way.
The noble and learned Lord Chancellor explained that the aim of the draftsman of the Bill was to achieve "rough justice," and that suggests that equity, more than law, is involved. Indeed, on the question of law, I submit that the fact that a former Lord Chancellor has asked that relief should be afforded on grounds of justice to some of those affected by the Bill, removes any ground for opposition based on law. I therefore base myself on an appeal to equity and to reason, and I shall attempt to deal primarily with what was said by the

913
noble and learned Lord Chancellor in Committee. It is urged that the mortgagor, having all the privileges, could justifiably be asked to pay all the charges. The mortgagor pays the fire insurance, for example, and therefore it is said that he should pay the War Damage Contribution, or any other contribution which circumstances may require, regardless of the fact that it has been repeatedly urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a fundamental principle of the Bill, that war damage insurance should fall proportionately on all classes of the community. Legislation arising out of the war has imposed this charge, which was unforeseen by those who drew up the mortgage. It may be argued that the lawyers should have foreseen and provided for it.
Let me take the instance of marine cover; the insurer there would never be prepared, subsequent to the writing of the cover, to include items which were not specified in the policy and which were in expansion of it, and any expansion of it to cover such risks subsequently would not be permitted. On the other hand, increased costs, requisitioning of properties at lower rents, losses from empty buildings, war damage, and so on, may very well remove the whole of the income of the mortgagor, but at the same time there is no diminution of the charge which he has to pay by way of interest on his mortgage. He is prevented from rebuilding during the war, and will have to face increased costs in that respect after the war; and yet the Rent Restrictions Acts prevent him from recouping himself. He has to find the whole of the money for War Damage Contributions. If he has not spare capital available, he will have to find that money out of income; and, by reason of taxation, for every pound or contribution that he pays he has to have at least two pounds of income.
That brings me to the argument based on the sanctity of contracts. This was emphasized during all the previous stages of this measure as good reason why the suggestion to broaden the basis of contribution should not be countenanced. Surely the Rent Restrictions Acts have already demolished that argument. Next, it was suggested that to do what is here proposed would imperil lending on mortgage. I would gladly see the State becoming the lender rather than that the
914
State alone should become the source of all building enterprise. In the Committee stage the case of the banks was raised. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor laid considerable emphasis on the position of the banks and the difficulty which their case would raise, but this is provided for in my Amendment, which excludes a security which can be discharged upon less than three months' notice. Apart from that, it is the custom of the banks, as is well known, to lend on short-term, and not to lend on long-term mortgages. It is not the business of the banks to make long-term mortgages; they do not want to lock their depositors' money up in that way, and to do so would be bad banking practice. The question is also raised where an advance is made upon a mixed bag of collateral. It is customary for the banks to value the collateral which they receive against any advance, and that would include the valuation of any property of a real estate character, so that the cover in that case could easily be determined.
Because the position of the banks has been so much emphasized, I cannot refrain from turning to the speech of my noble friend Lord Wardington on the last occasion, when he shed tears of anxiety over the injustice of suggesting any contribution by the poor mortgagee, who is getting the pittance of a meagre rate of interest. The noble Lord should not forget the widespread feeling among many classes of the community with regard to the past policy of the banks. The banks have allowed a very thin and meagre rate of interest on their deposits, while they have not hesitated to charge handsome rates of interest for their advances. Commercial records will show that in the past the rate has been as high as 7 per cent. That feeling may easily explain the widespread idea that the nationalization of the Bank of England is desirable. If there had been no war damage insurance, I suggest that the mortgagees would have been the first to protest. Not only so, but they would have had the sturdy and powerful support of the banks, and it is suggested that they would readily have accepted the requirement of contributions to relieve their otherwise exposed position. There is a natural tendency on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—there has been from the start—to listen to the siren voices of the banks, but there is no reason why favours should all go to them.

915
I could elaborate this at length, but I will ask your Lordships' permission to return to this point of the banks in a few minutes.
I cannot at this stage refrain from expressing my surprise that on a question like this, particularly on points like that raised by my noble friends Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Maugham, dealing with the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes, the Labour Party should have departed from their customary practice of supporting the position of the small man against the privileged financial institutions, and that they should have gone into the Division Lobby against the Amendments which were moved in Committee. This matter affects a vast number of people and involves a cruel hardship on many. There are probably more cases of poor property owners receiving loans on mortgage than there are of poor widows whose savings may be invested in mortgages. This problem is very definitely a difficult one to explain, and the fact was very evident in another place. The Division there on the point which I am discussing resulted in a majority of only 33, which is an indication that those who supported it were members who had taken the trouble really to study the matter.
The banks and big financial institutions are well organized, and, I repeat, they were early in the field to emphasize their point—it is natural that they should have done so—but those who understand the scientific management of property are relatively few. That must be well known to members of your Lordships' House, who are often directly or indirectly associated with property, and who will realize that matters of this kind are different from the problems with which the land agents of big estates normally have to do. It is for that reason that I ask the indulgence of the House in explaining that in the Committee stage, when I put this Amendment down and did not move it, I was in a difficult position owing to the fact that a former Lord Chancellor was dealing with a matter affecting law and was to be replied to by the present Lord Chancellor. In a cross-fire between legal authorities of such eminence it was not for a layman to interpose an Amendment such as I have interposed to-day. The Lord Chancellor on the Committee stage referred to the Second Schedule, paragraph 4, in reply to my suggestion that
916
a mortgagor of a house with contributory value not exceeding £150 and otherwise within the provisions of Section 25 of the original Act is indemnified in part by the mortgagee, whereas the mortgagor of a large block of flats could not be so indemnified, and the Amendment provided by the Second Schedule, paragraph 4, appears to create an even greater anomaly.
I am going to try to save the time of the House and relieve a little the monotony of the subject by asking your Lordships to look at a pictorial description of the matter that I am trying to explain. Here on the drawing I hold in my hand is a block of flats of which the annual rental value does not exceed £35· On the other side is one where the individual values may exceed £35· The contributory value of the flats on this second side may be £36 because they are a little more decorative owing to having window boxes. The buildings are identical, their owners are the same, and they are both mortgaged. In one case where the value does not exceed £35, the mortgagee contributes, but if the value is more than £35, owing to the artistic embellishment of window boxes, there is no contribution by the mortgagee. If that same builder has built the same number of houses, but side by side, horizontally instead of vertically, he does not receive any contribution from the mortgagee. The buildings are just the same, in the same locality, but the flats are horizontal instead of vertical. I could point out other anomalies, but I will spare the House, although the figures have a definite bearing upon the situation. I would, however, emphasize the point that in the case of a block of buildings where the rental value is not more than £35 the mortgagee contributes. The point is that if the payment of indirect contribution is limited to certain mortgages there must be border-line cases. That may well create hardship and dissatisfaction. If this could not be obviated without difficulty it would be understandable, but it appears to be true that the Government's advisers have apparently not effectively understood the practical side of this question, and in presuming to say that I feel sure that the illustrations which, by the kind permission of the House, I have just given will convince noble Lords that there are illogicalities in the measure as it stands at present.
The Amendment moved in the House of Commons providing for contribution by all mortgagees other than in respect of mortgages for short terms, such as those to which I have already referred by bankers, was proposed by those who have specialized in this question of the management of property. It is for that reason that I again refer to the question of the banks. It does not appear to overcome all the difficulties that the Lord Chancellor has been advised would make such a provision impracticable, and also to provide an equitable distribution of the property-owners' portion of the War Damage Contribution among all those with a real interest in the property. I emphasize that the interest of the mortgagee is a very real one. This proposal would avoid anomalies, difficulties, inequalities, or hardships. No valuation would at any time in any case be required, and no question could arise as to the amount of the contribution to be collected by the mortgagor from the mortgagee. The proposal simply is that every mortgagor would be entitled to collect from his mortgagee 2s. in each pound of loan interest paid to him, but not exceeding in any case 50 per cent. of the net contribution of the mortgagor. Of course, if in any year the instalment of the contribution payable by the mortgagor is varied from 2s. in the pound, then the amount due from the mortgagee would be similarly varied.
The reason for that calculation is that the mortgagors contribution is paid on the amount of Schedule A net annual value. This is a theoretical annual income, or net annual income if the rent is an inclusive one. The reason for the limitation of the mortgagee's contribution to 50 per cent. of the mortgagor's contribution is to prevent any anomaly arising in cases where Schedule A net annual value may be low in relation to the capital value and so, possibly, in relation to the mortgage. Mortgages of all kinds are included, whether legal, equitable or debenture charge, because in each the mortgagee has a direct interest in the preservation of the property. There can be no question about that. The mortgagee is equally interested, and at times more interested than the mortgagor in regard to his holding. Mortgages which can be redeemed at three months' notice, as in the case of bank loans, are already provided for.
Let me cite a typical case. A freehold property, or a parcel of freehold properties, with a capital value of £10,000 having a net annual value of £650, may be mortgaged for £7,000 at 5 per cent. interest. In that case the mortgagor's income would be £650. The mortgagee's income would be £350 and the mortgagor's net income would be £300. The War Damage Contribution would be £65 per annum and the mortgagee's contribution, limited to 50 per cent., as well as the mortgagor's contribution, would be £32 10s. If the properties are leasehold with fifty years or more unexpired, the ground rent being £130 per annum, the mortgagor will recover 10 per cent. of the contribution from the freeholder—namely £6 10s. per annum, thus reducing his contribution to £58 10s., and in consequence the mortgagee's and the mortgagor's contributions will each be £29 5s. If the freeholder has mortgaged his ground rent for £2,000 at 5 per cent., his mortgagee's contribution, recoverable by him, will be 2s. in the pound on the amount of his interest, but again limited to 50 per cent.—namely, £3 5s. Thus the burden is spread over all interests without valuations, but by the simplest of mathematical calculations and without interfering in any way with the one collection of the total contribution by the Inland Revenue from the direct contributor.
I ask the patience of the House while I quote figures in the case of a small shopkeeper. Under the Bill a small shopkeeper who wants to place a mortgage on his house is not included in the provisions of Section 25. He wants to impose a mortgage, we will say, on a capital value of £3,000—net annual value £200 and a mortgage of £2,000 at 4 per cent. The War Damage Contribution is £20 per annum and he would collect £8 of it from the £80 interest he pays to the mortgagee. If he has had to raise a second mortgage or £300 at 6½ per cent., he would also collect £1 19s. from the second mortgagee. If the total mortgage interest in such a case exceeded 50 per cent. of the annual value, then 50 per cent. of the total contribution would be collectable from the mortgagees in proportion to the amount of interest payable to each. Again I seek the indulgence of the House while I cite the case of debenture stock. Take the case of a company owning £100,000 of freehold property with a net annual value of

919
£6,000—a company with an ordinary capital of £50,000, a debenture stock of £50,000 at 4 per cent. The War Damage Contribution is £600 per annum of which £200 is recoverable from the debenture interest. In consequence each holder would suffer a deduction of 2s. from each pound of interest paid to him. Similar calculations to those mentioned would be made in the case of ground rents, second mortgages, or where the total interest on mortgages exceeds 50 per cent. of the net annual value.
In this Amendment provision is not made for contribution by preference stock holders. That point was raised by Lord Wardington on the last stage, and he advanced grounds for avoiding the proposals which had been put forward by Lord Maugham, but if the general opinion is that they should contribute, the additional words can be added to provide for the deduction of 2s. in the pound of preference dividend with precisely the same limitations and conditions as those applying to mortgage interest. In the case of an industrial company with substantial mortgagees on the company's assets including only a small amount of property, no difficulties would arise in the application of precisely similar calculations. I say this because it was emphasized again in the case of the banks. I instance this particular case so that this aspect of it should not be overlooked. This matter was referred to by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the Lord Chancellor, with his usual consideration, was kind enough to admit that there had been some reason in the case presented.
Take an industrial company with £1,000,000 capital divided into £500,000 ordinary and £500,000 mortgaged debentures at 5 per cent., secured as a floating charge on assets of the company with a contributory value of property of £10,000. The War Damage Contribution would be £1,000 per annum. Fifty per cent.— namely, £500, deductible from mortgage interest of £25,000 per annum, amounts to 4·8d. in each pound of interest. In some cases the amount might be negligible and would not be collected. In others it might be considerable, but in no case could it be an unfair or inequitable charge, because it cannot exceed 50 per cent. of the contribution on the property that is actually held as security, and if the loan interest is less than 50 per cent.
920
of the contributory value of the property, then the contribution is calculated on the amount of the interest.
The Lord Chancellor said that the Amendment moved by Lord Maugham did not apply a principle. One of the main grounds, I would remind the House, on which I bring forward this Amendment, is that it is different from that which was moved by Lord Maugham. This Amendment cannot be criticized on the same grounds as was Lord Maugham's. I bring it forward because it applies a definite principle. In his reply on the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, the Lord Chancellor said that
"the authorities who were trying to work this scheme in order to find out how much the contribution should be from the mortgagee will have to value all these items."
That difficulty would not apply in this case as no valuation would be required. Again, later, the Lord Chancellor said:
"… you would get into a terrible confusion between equitable mortgages, floating charges, debentures and the rest of it."
The reason why I move this Amendment is that you could not get into those difficulties under this Amendment, which embraces cases distinct from those dealt with in the Amendment moved in the Committee stage of the Bill.
My Amendment would spread the burden of contribution among those who benefit by the protection afforded by the original Act. At present the burden falls solely upon the mortgagor. The annual instalment of 2s. in the pound of the hypothetical interest is calculated for Schedule A tax, and it is not generally realized that the mortgagor is paying this tax on his hypothetical income before any allowance is made in respect of losses from empties or other causes. Generally speaking, in areas where there has been enemy action—and I need not remind your Lordships how widespread that has been—there is no comparison between the hypothetical income of Schedule A assessment on which the War Damage Contribution is levied and the actual income. I regret that I have had to trench so long on the indulgence of the House, but I hope I have made it clear that the Amendment which is being discussed now is quite different from what was put forward in the Committee stage. Because it affects so wide a body of people, because it does

921
not involve any sacrifice by the State, I bring it forward now. I would remind the House that the mortgagor recovers Income Tax from the mortgage interest, and, therefore, I contend he should recover a portion of the War Damage Contribution also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Barnby.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, with all possible respect to Lord Barnby I do not think that on this subject he is personally open to persuasion or conviction, and therefore, in the very few remarks which I shall make, I shall not hope to persuade him, but I must out of courtesy to him make one or two observations on his proposal. In the first place his Amendment, moved on Report, is precisely the Amendment which he put down for the Committee stage. He did not move it then. He has told us in the course of his speech that he deliberately did not move it then. It is not for me to suggest what is the ordinary practice of the House, but as a matter of convenience I should hope that when members have Amendments to make to a Bill, and they really wish to make them, they should propose to make them at the Committee stage.
But leaving that apart, the proposal which the noble Lord now makes is very close to the proposal which he made last year and the House rejected it. It is also very close to the Amendment that was moved in the House of Commons on this Bill and rejected. The noble Lord was good enough to explain that the reason for the Commons doing that is that the members of the House of Commons who supported the Amendment understood it, but that the Government and all who voted against it did not understand it at all. Now I do not delay to explain the noble Lord's Amendment, and I do not in fact ask for any further explanation of it. He himself has said it is very simple, and the great advantage of simple things is that they do not need to be repeated. Let me, therefore, in very few words, explain to noble Lords of this House why it is that this Amendment is quite impossible. It is impossible for two reasons. The first reason is a reason of principle. The view which has been taken by Parliament last year, and again, as far as past action is concerned, by this House, is that
922
in the matter of this contribution for war damage the mortgagee, generally speaking, should not have to take a share. That is not because mortgagees or bankers or any other body of people have any particular influence in this House. Your Lordships are as independent and right minded a body as can be found in the country. The reason for it is this. When a man lends money to a borrower on the security of property, the man who lends the money does not get any advantage from that transaction except the agreed rate of interest.
If the borrower, pledging his property to the lender, acquires a sum of money by which he buys a valuable patent and thereby becomes a millionaire, the mortgagee is not entitled to come along and say: "Oh, the money I have lent you has caused you to become a millionaire, therefore I must have a portion of it." The whole principle of lending money on the security of property is that both the benefits and the disadvantages associated with the ownership of the property by the borrower continue as they were. That is one of the reasons why the rate of interest when you borrow money giving reasonable security is comparatively low. If you were to adopt the principle that unforeseen or unmeasured burdens never recognized between the parties were to be shared between the lender and the borrower, then you have upset the whole principle on which the borrower borrows from the lender. What we have done—the noble Lord, I know, will remember this—in order to assist the borrower from what no doubt was an unexpected misfortune if his house is destroyed by enemy action, is this. We have relieved him from the obligation which he otherwise would be under to build up his house again, which is the usual covenant in a mortgage based on property. That is the principle which is being applied, and it has commended itself not only to the Treasury and the Government, but to the House of Commons on two occasions and to the House of Lords last year, and to a Committee of this House as recently as last week, for the vote which was given after the very persuasive remarks of Lord Maugham resulted in an overwhelming decision against his proposal; indeed only five members of your Lordships' House voted in favour of the proposal, one of whom was Lord Barnby.

923
That is the principle. Even more conclusive are the considerations of practicability and fairness. The noble Lord makes no distinction between a first mortgage and a subsequent mortgage. He makes no distinction between the measure of contribution which is adopted under Section 25 and the wholly different measure which he proposes in this Bill. If I may take one instance which will not need pictorial illustration, it will be quite sufficient to show what a very grotesque proposal this is. He desires that this plan, that the mortgagee should contribute, should apply to debentures of all sorts and kinds. There are many cases in business where the debentures which have been issued by the company, though they may no doubt be charged on all the property of the company, are in substance secured on property quite different from the building which is exposed to the risk of being bombed by the enemy. Supposing you take a very large mining corporation owning valuable mines in South Africa which has amongst other things an office in the City of London, as most of them I am glad to think have. Of course, if that mining corporation issues debentures for £1,000,000 or £5,000,000 they will no doubt be secured on the whole of the property, but the important security will be the gold mines or the copper mines in South Africa, and the office which is being occupied by the company in London is a very small part of the security. What does this Amendment propose? It solemnly provides that there must be a sharing of the War Damage Contribution which will cast upon the debentures as much as 50 per cent. of the contribution that has to be made for purposes of war damage, and if you assume widely distributed debentures, it involves calculating how many pennies you are to get out of each debenture holder in order to build up the necessary amount.
This matter has been debated a good many times and the Government have done their best to make it plain. I hope my noble friend Lord Barnby will not take it amiss if I say that I recall an observation of Macbeth after Banquo had been killed, and he was faced with his ghost. Macbeth said:
"… the time has been,
That, when the brains were out, the man would die,
And there an end; but now they arise again …"
924
I hope that this particular ghost has now been laid for the last time and that in view of the reiterated decision of the majority of both Houses of Parliament it may be said that in this respect the Bill is about right.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 [Short title, construction, citation and extent]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are a few Amendments on the Paper which I have to move, but I am glad to say they will not require any lengthy explanation from me. The first Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment. I can explain it if any of your Lordships so desire, but I do not think you will wish me to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 44, after ("and") insert ("references in this Act and in that Act to Part I of that Act shall include references to provisions of this Act which relate to payments in respect of war damage to land or to the recovery or the ultimate incidence of instalments of contributions, and this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Amendments relating to the principal Act generally]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert, after sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 5 [payments to owners of rent-charges]:
"(6) As regards cases in which the title to a rentcharge, or to land subject thereto, is registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925, such provision may, without prejudice to the generality of Section one hundred and forty-four of that Act, be made by rules under that section as may be expedient in consequence of the provisions of this paragraph, and in particular for securing (by the imposition of conditions as to the exercise of the said right or otherwise) that the extinguishment of any of a rentcharge by virtue of this paragraph shall not take effect without notice thereof being entered on the register."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary in order to secure that the title of a rentcharge is registered under the Land Registration Act and the amount by which it is reduced in consequence of the owner exercising his right of compensation is notified on the register. I think the importance of that speaks for itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, at end insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I regret that this Amendment is only in manuscript form. It is to add to paragraph 5 these words:
"And as regards cases in which land in Northern Ireland is subject to a rentcharge, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may by rules make such provision as may be expedient for securing (by the imposition of conditions as to the exercise of the said right or otherwise) that the extinguishment of any of the rentcharge by virtue of this paragraph shall not take effect without notice thereof being registered in the proper office for the registration of deeds or titles as the case may require.
It relates to Northern Ireland, and your Lordships will see that it merely trims the Bill so as to make the same provision for Northern Ireland. It secures that if the holder of the rentcharge takes advantage of our new provision it shall be recorded so that nobody shall be misled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment consequential on what we have already done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 41, leave out from ("use") to ("Act"), in line 43.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 12, leave out from ("Commissioners") to the end of line 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Amendments as to ultimate incidence of contributions under Part I of the principal Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph 4:
"In relation to a dwelling house comprised in such a tenement as aforesaid and forming part only of a contributory property, the reference in this subsection to the contributory value of the dwelling house shall be construed—

(a) where the dwelling house is separately entered in the valuation roll, as a reference to an amount which bears to the contributory value of the contributory property of which
926
the dwelling house forms part the same proportion as the rateable value of the dwelling house bears to the aggregate of the rateable values of all the parts of the contributory property;

(b) in any other case, as a reference to an amount which bears to the contributory value of the contributory property the same proportion as the annual value of the dwelling house bears to the annual value of the contributory property."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, This Amendment deals with a defect which has shown itself in regard to Scotland. We have made a provision, as my noble friend Lord Barnby said in his speech, by which in certain cases where a tenement contains several small residences which added together would exceed the maximum under Section 25, none the less, the separate residences may be treated each separately so that Section 25 may apply to it.
LORD BARNBY: May I ask is there any limit at which that may apply?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my noble friend knows it very well. He mentioned it in his speech. This provision, however, is necessary for this reason, that a dwelling house in Scotland has no separate contributory value of its own and the unit for valuation purposes is the tenement. We must, therefore, make a provision by which you can distribute the proper value attached to the tenement among the portions into which the tenement may be divided. It is always subject to the limitation of value to which my noble friend called attention in his speech.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BARNBY: Is it clear that that is confined only to a limited number of houses which may be of the same value horizontally?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the House will allow me to speak again, I think it is quite plain that in order that the provision may avail to get a contribution from the mortgagee, the mortgage must be created on the occasion of the acquisition of the mortgagee's interest, or the execution of works of improvement on the property. Another condition is that the property in which the mortgage subsists must be either a residential property

927
of a contributory value of not more than £150 or, if a farm, of the value of not more than £500. A third condition is that the mortgage must not have been created in respect of any interest in more than the existing property. The whole point of this present Amendment is simply to secure that there shall be machinery for giving proper valuation to the appropriate sub-divisions of the title.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to thank the Lord Chancellor most sincerely for the very clear and helpful explanation which he has given. I hope that your Lordships will realize, after listening to what he has said, the extreme intricacy of the matter. This provides for impingement on the principle of the Bill. It was on this ground, and on grounds which did not involve any sacrifice to the State, that I ventured to ask for the indulgence of the House which has been so patiently granted to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Consequential Amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this last Amendment embodies a drafting change.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 4, after ("immediately") insert ("where it first occurs").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

ALLIED POWERS (WAR SERVICE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which in another place met with general approval and passed through all its stages without challenge. Its proposals were carefully examined and some necessary clarifications were made during its progress through another place. The purpose of the measure was generally accepted as reasonable and right. I need
928
not, therefore, trouble your Lordships with any detailed explanation of the Bill; but a few words describing its scope and purpose may be useful, and, indeed, necessary. The Bill is intended to complete for the present the series of Acts of Parliament arising out of the presence in this country of seven Allied Governments. Parliament has already passed the Allied Forces Act of August, 1940, enabling the Allied Governments to maintain discipline among persons already serving in the Allied Forces, the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act of March, 1941, providing fitting status for the personnel of the Allied Governments, and the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Act of May, 1941, enabling the Allied Governments to maintain discipline in their own ships and to direct their seamen to go to sea.
The policy of His Majesty's Government is and has been to enable those Governments to continue their own administration. All of them have, or are developing, Armed Forces which are giving valuable and very much appreciated help to the Allied cause, and I know that your Lordships would wish to express your appreciation of all that they have done and are preparing to do. Those members of the Allied Forces at present in our country have indeed far more to endure than we ourselves have to endure. They realize that their own homes and land are being defiled by one or more merciless invaders, and I do not know any more moving sight in London at the present time than the sight of these Allied Nationals walking our streets with the agonies of their respective countries reflected upon their faces. The majority of these Allied Nationals are already serving in National Forces. Less than 10,000 remain in civil life, and, probably, at least one-third of these are engaged on important work from which it is undesirable to move them. So far as the remainder are concerned His Majesty's Government and the Allied Governments feel that they should not avoid military service except on grounds of the importance of an individual's civil work. That principle has been agreed to by all the Allied Governments except one, and it is hoped that agreement in that respect will shortly be secured.
The Bill establishes a procedure for ensuring that, when a person has not voluntarily joined up by a certain date,

929
he shall be called up to join the British Forces. The Bill can be applied to the nationals of any country allied with His Majesty's Government, but it can only be 50 applied with the assent of the particular Government concerned. Men who are of British military age may have two months—an Order in Council so provides—within which they must join their own National Forces, and if they do not they may be called up to join the British Forces. It is intended to post Allied Nationals who are called up for the British Forces to the Pioneer Corps, unless they have special qualifications for service in the Royal Air Force. Allied Governments will be entitled at their discretion to issue certificates of exemption to any of their nationals. Men to whom certificates are issued will not be liable to be called up for the British Forces. It is proposed to give employers an early opportunity to apply for the deferment of the calling up of Allied Nationals employed on vital war work. The Government will ask the Allied Governments not to call up such men to their own Forces and they will not be called up to the British Forces. That constitutes a very short description of the purpose and scope of this Bill. It is the result of long negotiations with the powers concerned. It is right in principle, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it should be passed into law. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Snell.)
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, when the original Act was passed, about two years ago, giving to the Allied Governments disciplinary powers over their Forces, it was foreseen that some such measure as this would be brought forward, and those of us who were somewhat suspicious of the powers that might be exercised, either disciplinary or otherwise, did our best to see that this measure, when it did come forward, should be in accordance with our more liberal British traditions. I took a deputation to the Foreign Office, asking in particular that the option of joining the British Army should be given 1o all these foreign nationals. That was finally conceded. The Allied Governments agreed to it, and, above all, our own Army authorities agreed to it. I think that that is a great step in advance, because many of the people to whom this measure applies are
930
merely nominally nationals of another country. A great many of them—Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French and others—have lived here for thirty years or so. They belong generally to the poorer classes, who have not acquired naturalization owing to the expense, and therefore they are still nominally the subjects of a foreign Government. Those people may not even speak a word of the language of the nationality to which they are supposed to belong; they have acquired English habits and customs, and they would infinitely prefer to be in the British Army rather than to be relegated to the Army of a country which they have long since abandoned.
In that respect this Bill is an enormous advance and should be welcomed by all those who have interested themselves in this very intricate subject. There are still, however, two points in this Bill which I think are extremely objectionable. There have been many cases where pressure by some Allied Government has forced their nationals into the Army of that Government already—not legally, but by bringing pressure to bear upon them. The subjects of the Allied Government, not knowing what the law was, were induced to enter the Allied Army; they then discovered that the Allied Government had no power to compel them to join, and so they deserted, and, being within their rights, they went back to civil life. Many of them are now working in munition factories and elsewhere. Under this Bill, however, provided that they have ever served even for a day in the Army of an Allied Government, they are liable to be called up again for service in that Army; they have not the option, given by Clause 5, of joining the British Army.
When this Bill was discussed in another place, what my noble friend Lord Snell has called "clarifications" were made; that is to say, pledges were given by the Attorney-General that in such cases as that, where a man had at one time been a member of an Allied Army, he should not be debarred from joining the British Army, if he had meanwhile returned to civil life. That is what every one in the House of Commons wanted, and I think that it would appeal to your Lordships also as being just and proper; but an ex cathedra statement by the Attorney-General is not the same as a definite provision in the Bill. I am a little

931
nervous about these promises that are given—we have had dozens of cases of the same sort—which cut no ice in a Court of Law. I think it would he worth while considering, between now and the Committee stage, whether it is not possible to frame words which would secure that right which we all intend these people to have; even if they have for a short time served in a foreign Army, they should be in exactly the same position as those who have refused to go into the Army at all. There is one point in that connexion which I wish to make clear. It has been supposed that these people are showing a lack of patriotism in preferring the British Army to the Army of their own Government, but I do not think that any weight should be given to that argument. They are desperately anxious to help in the war, and naturally they like doing so amongst people whose language they speak, and, above all, amongst people who are sympathetic towards their point of view. That is something which ought to be understood, and I hope that we shall be able to make this Bill cover all the people to whom it should apply.
There is one point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Snell which I do not like. These people, who are quite rightly allowed to join the British Army, and who are also allowed to work in our war factories, ought to be allowed to join something a little more active, or at least a little more dangerous, than the Pioneer Corps. They do not want their part in this war against Hitler to be confined to a passive role. The reason for putting them into the Pioneer Corps, quite frankly, is that, being foreign subjects, they may be liable to execution if they have to surrender to the enemy; they are therefore put into the Pioneer Corps because it is thought that that is less likely to involve them in surrender. The Pioneer Corps, unfortunately, have in fact been compelled to surrender quite as much as any active troops, and there is no safeguard for a man's life if he surrenders by putting him into the Pioneer Corps, but only less chance of escape. Moreover, these people do not ask for this security; what they ask for is the right to fight, and I think that, when we take them into the Army, we might give them a chance of fighting. I have received masses of letters from refugees now serving in the Pioneer Corps, not complaining of the conditions
932
in the Pioneer Corps or of the work which they are doing, but saying that their relations have been butchered in Poland, in Germany, in Rumania or elsewhere, and yet they are not allowed to kill a German; they are not allowed to fight. I think we ought to realize that it is no longer the exclusive privilege of an Englishman to be killed in the defence of liberty. I beg the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill to make representations to the War Office, to the Admiralty and to the Air Force, that these people should be allowed to enter those Services where there is danger, and not be shepherded into those Services which are safe, and therefore less noble. Of the two points to which I have referred, the first can be dealt with in the Committee stage, but the second is impossible of amendment here, and depends entirely upon public opinion. Well, we have some influence with public opinion, and I think we might bring such pressure to bear upon the Fighting Services of this country that these people would be afforded the opportunity enjoyed by all of us of risking our lives in the common cause.
It is idle for me to conceal the fact that most of these people I am speaking of are Jews. I wish I did not always have to speak for the Jews; I wish the Jewish members of this House would do it instead. The mass of abusive letters one gets about Jews is almost intolerable: every Fascist who ought to be locked up under 18B seems to take a delight in writing me anonymous postcards. But this is not a question of the Jews—it affects the Jews, but this is a question of our reputation, of British honour. It is incumbent upon us to see that even those unfortunate refugees who happen to be Jews should have as decent a chance to fight Germany, as decent a chance of justice and fair play, as any other part of the population of these Islands.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, first of all let me assure my noble friend that his remarks will receive consideration, and if it is possible to meet his desires at the Committee stage, steps will be taken in order to do so. I thank him for his general approval of the Bill. There are few Bills that come before your Lordships' House that some of us would not like to amend in one direction or another. I can only say in regard to the two points that he has mentioned, first of all that

933
of pressure, that for two years now the Allied Powers have been calling up their nationals, and this Bill at least does something to relieve the pressure; that is to say that if the pressure is continued and the persons concerned will not respond to the call, then in two months they will have the privilege, or, if you like, the right, to join the British Army. In regard to the Pioneer Corps, I only desire to say that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the Pioneer Corps is a combatant corps, and it is an honourable branch of service, in which so far a good many foreigners have served, with very great distinction. Nevertheless, the remarks made by the noble Lord will be considered. I now invite your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE EMPIRE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to draw attention to the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, may I begin by saying that the British Empire until recently covered over one-quarter of the earth's surface, and that this area contained over one-quarter of the population of the world. A small but very valuable portion of it was recently wrested from us by the Japanese, but this we will regain after the defeat of Japan, and the British Empire will be reconstituted again as it was, both in size and in population. Let me begin by giving a brief survey of the constituent parts of our Empire and of their attitude to this war. And may I, by way of preface, remind your Lordships that the British Empire consists of the Dominions, forming the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Indian Empire, and the Colonial Empire—truly a loosely-knit combination, but elastic in action, and determined in defence and offence when attacked?
Taking our Dominions first, Canada is not only the oldest but the biggest Dominion, being larger than Europe and even greater in size than the United States of America. Canada was the first overseas Dominion to be constituted under the Grown, and it has ever been a staunch and loyal unit of the British Empire.
934
Apart from men and resources of all kinds, Canada's outstanding contribution so far to this war has been the provision of numerous air training centres, to which not only young Canadians have flocked, but young men from all over the Empire. Those training centres, working under the British Commonwealth Air Training Scheme, have produced air pilots and crews in their thousands, and the Empire Air Force thus created will constitute the foundation of our final victory in the air. Canada's achievement in this way will, moreover, be of inestimable value after the war in assisting the maintenance of world peace. And for civil purposes also the air as a means of transport is bound to become as common as the road, the sea, or the railway is to-day. The Empire air routes and air links will then become more important and vital than ever, and it is certainly more important to think about and prepare for them now than about any air routes to adjacent countries of Europe.
Let us turn to the other Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, all of whom are fighting so gallantly alongside of us. It was largely due to South African troops under the command of that famous general and statesman, General Smuts, who has rendered such remarkable service both to his own country, South Africa, and to the Empire, that Abyssinia was wrested from the hands of the Italian aggressors, and has already been restored to her Emperor and people. South African troops and airmen are still fighting valiantly in the Near and Middle East, and are at this moment engaged in a life and death struggle against the aggressors in Libya and Egypt. Australians are now principally engaged in the heavy task of defending their own country from the Japanese aggressor, and resolutely and bravely fighting to recover from the Japanese the territories taken by them in the adjacent areas in the Far East. They are also fighting, as we know and have learnt quite recently, valiantly alongside other Empire troops in Egypt. But long before it was thought that Japan would join the Axis Powers in their conflict with the Allied countries, at the very first call both Australia and New Zealand sprang to arms, and with indomitable courage and fortitude placed all their resources at the Empire's disposal. At this very moment the New Zealand force

935
are fighting brilliantly alongside ours in the grim battle of Egypt, and are displaying a spirit of courage and determination that has never been surpassed in war.
Then we come to the self-governing Colony, Southern Rhodesia. It will always be to her great credit that at the outbreak of war Southern Rhodesian troops were the first to go outside their own territory to defend another British Colony from Italian aggression, and since then she has placed all her resources at our disposal, and her soldiers are playing a brave part on the battlefield of Europe and the Middle East. Southern Rhodesia has also established air training centres in the Colony, and these are proving of great value indeed in the Empire air effort. Apart from India, to which I shall refer later, there are numerous British Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories scattered over the Seven Seas, all of which in their various ways have made very loyal and willing contributions to the common cause. If these contributions have not, generally speaking, been through military effort, let me remind your Lordships that it has never been the policy of Great Britain to militarize the native peoples of the Colonies, native troops being used principally for police purposes and generally on a small scale compared with the size of their populations. On the contrary, it has always been our object to teach them the arts and blessings of peace, leaving it largely to British arms to defend them against outside aggression. Criticism, therefore, of the native inhabitants of Malaya for not defending themselves against the Japanese are quite unjustified. It is, moreover, well to remember that our Protectorates in Malaya and elsewhere voluntarily placed themselves under our protection for the purpose of being defended by us, and that we formed them into Protectorates acknowledging these very conditions.
What are the bonds that hold us as an Empire and British Commonwealth so closely together? Firstly, there is the common allegiance to the Crown and loyalty to the King. Secondly, there is the bond of kinship and language. Thirdly, there is the bond engendered through centuries of freedom of thought, of action, and expression, of self-government, and religious liberty. These are
936
the bonds and ideals which bind us together, which we all understand and for which we are willing to fight and to die. It is in the pursuit of these democratic ideals that the Empire will keep united both to-day and in the future. In the past, when suggestions have been made to the overseas Dominions for any form of Federation, these suggestions have always been a source of irritation, and have invariably been met with resistance and resentment on the part of the peoples of the Dominions. The late Earl Balfour, as Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Imperial Conference of 1926 to report on questions affecting Inter-Imperial Relations, knew how strong feeling in the Dominions was against any form of Federation, and together with his Committee he issued a simple formula which laid down the relationships for the future in clear and forceful terms. In my opinion that formula will ever remain the surest foundation for Imperial relationships.
It is to be found in Command Paper No. 2768 containing the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and this is what it says. Great Britain and the Dominions are
"autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
Having made that definition the Report went on to say—and this is very important:
"A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual co-operation easy."
And then, after a short paragraph, the Report adds:
"But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the Dominions stand to each other can do more than express a portion of the truth. The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its life-blood. Free co-operation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present Conference; excellent results have been thereby obtained. And, though every Dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled.

937
"Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-Imperial Relations."
Lord Balfour's declaration can rightly be regarded as the political charter of the British Common wealth of Nations, and it has subsequently found expression in the now famous Statute of Westminster. In its fulfilment, I believe, lies the strongest foundation for the maintenance of unity within our Empire and for a bright future fraught with great benefit to the world.
Let us turn to another side of the relationship between the overseas Dominions and the British Colonies. In this case, although I have not yet spoken of India, I should like to include India. I have no hesitation in affirming that reciprocal trade agreements such as those entered into at Ottawa have been of great practical value in maintaining Empire solidarity. Apart from the ordinary benefits derived by the participating units of the British Empire, these agreements were of the greatest assistance in creating reserves of foodstuffs and raw materials before the war, and are proving exceedingly helpful in the prosecution of the war not only to ourselves but to our Allies. They will, moreover, prove invaluable when it comes to succouring the starving peoples of Europe after the war, because this will be one of the bounden duties of the Empire. I suggest, therefore, that the critics of these reciprocal Imperial trade agreements should pause before seeking the abolition of them when the war is over. I agree that it is more than probable that they will require modification to meet the new conditions brought about by the war. These new conditions are perfectly obvious. The great advance in secondary industries in all the Dominions, and all the other matters which have changed the conditions since these agreements were entered into, will require that they should be modified wherever necessary. But I believe their complete cancellation would be a great mistake, and I sincerely trust this will rot take place.
Let me refer in this connexion to one of the most difficult post-war problems now being discussed, and that is how to ensure that under-consumption in the world will be rectified so that all persons, whatever their circumstances, will get a sufficiency of food to live on. Many schemes are being considered for organizing consumption so as to achieve
938
this object, but I have nowhere seen any suggestion for organizing production and distribution as well as consumption, although the one is governed by the others and cannot be solved without the others. The Ottawa Conference, over which my noble friend Lord Bennett presided with such distinction, did on the other hand largely organize production and distribution within the British Empire, covering, as I have said, nearly one-quarter of the earth's surface and containing over one-quarter of the earth's population. This was decidedly a step in the direction which we are all seeking to-day. Let us, therefore, rather build upon this foundation and do not let us destroy it. Let us see rather whether we cannot dovetail what we have already done in this connexion in such a large portion of the world into the wider world schemes for the organization of production, distribution, and consumption on the broader and more humane lines desired for the future. Having started over, that large area with that great population, surely it is better to try and extend what has already been achieved by adding other things to it, when and as others are willing to join, rather than by destroying what we have done and beginning all over again.
Now let me refer to another matter. Here in this our own country we have much depreciation and criticism of the manner in which in the past we have administered our Colonies and carried out our trusteeship for them. This was common Nazi propaganda before the war, and still is. A great deal is also being talked and written here about internationalization and denationalization of our Colonies, and of obtaining the assistance of other Colony-owning countries in governing them. Indeed, these criticisms and suggestions are inculcating the view in the minds of many of our British Colonies overseas that we do not understand their problems, and they are causing much irritation. But if our administration had been so inefficient as is suggested could our Empire have grown in its strength and have been developed to the extent that it has? Had our policy really been so bankrupt, would it have produced four independent self-governing Dominions and a varied Colonial Empire with populations of many colours and creeds all voluntarily, enthusiastically

939
and loyally ranged alongside us to-day fighting for the same cause and ideals as ourselves? The answer of course on both points is "No." Moreover, these results seem to me to indicate that for so long as we in Great Britain stand by our Empire, for so long will our Empire stand by us.
The idea that the denationalization and internationalization of our Colonies would assist and facilitate the issues of freer trade and wider economy in the world, I regard as absolutely fallacious and mischievous. This thesis was originally formulated before the war by Nazi propagandists and is now supported in this country by Little Englanders who seem incapable of appreciating the importance to us of our Colonies and the loyalty of the Colonies to the Mother Country and the Empire. Surely, there should be absolutely no difficulty in making the raw materials of our Colonies freely available to all nations for legitimate use by them, whilst at the same time maintaining their status within the Empire. The mere fact of internationalizing them and of taking away from them what most of them regard as their birthright, will not help this object in any way whatsoever.
The suggestion which has recently been ventilated in a leading newspaper that our British Colonies require international attention after the war, and that the more barriers that are broken down and national destinies linked up or merged in the world of the future, the more the British Empire will be fulfilling itself, is very attractive no doubt to those theoretical internationalists here who have not the vision to appreciate the pregnant part the British Empire as at present constituted still has to play in the settlement of world problems. But it is not practical politics or practical common sense. It reminds me of the ill-starred League of Nations after the last war, set up under similar good intentions, to which we as an Empire conformed in full faith only to find ourselves twenty years afterwards in the critical situation in which we arc to-day, once more struggling for our very existence both as a nation and as an Empire. Do not let us be so foolish as to repeat this fatal mistake under another guise, and let us at least be sure, before we adopt any measures however seductive in their idealistic and theoretical outlook, that world peace is fully secure for the
940
future. The running of the risk of a second Geneva would be a piece of criminal folly which would probably lead to a third World War.
Let me now speak to you briefly about India. My view is that both in administration and in the results of our policy our government of our great Indian Empire with its 390,000,000 inhabitants has been one of remarkable success. Can your Lordships imagine India, if she had been left to herself, being to-day in the position in which she actually is, of a country aspiring to self-government and independence? Rent as India has been, and still is, by racial quarrels and religious differences, we have nevertheless given her internal peace and progress for over two centuries, whilst to-day we are willing to give her, if she can amicably settle those differences, the opportunity to acquire Dominion status and of taking her place under the Crown as an equal and independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. What better proof of our honesty of purpose in the pursuit of our democratic ideals, and what better proof of our application of those ideals can there be, than that India, through our system of government, should have reached a state when, notwithstanding her racial and religious differences, she wishes to practice those ideals and to apply them to herself?
It may be argued that we have, in this country, on our part, benefited by the large amount of trade and commerce we have over the course of time done with India. Of course, we have benefited, and no sensible person wishes to deny it. On the other hand, we have given back much to India likewise through trade and commerce, and also in many other ways, such as through honest and progressive administration and internal material developments which will be of lasting benefit to that country. We in this country have no reason to wear the white sheet of penitence over India. We can be proud of our record and achievements there, and the time will come, I believe, when India herself will be proud of her membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In the meantime she is contributing enormously in men and resources. Her soldiers are fighting valiantly to defend the common cause against the aggressor, and have shown great bravery and courage in the many stiff battles in which they

941
have taken part, and we are most grateful to them.
It is universally accepted that after the war we shall all have to face new conditions and that a so-called "new order" will emerge as a result of this world-wide war, not the "new order" contemplated by Hitler of brutal, bestial tyranny and world domination by Germany, but a new order dictated by the United Nations based upon human liberty and religious freedom. In the creation of this new order the British Empire will have a great and an onerous part to play, and in this work our principal collaborators will be the United States of America and Russia, who to-day is pouring out her soul in agony against the Nazi aggressors. Confronted by a common danger and by acts from aggressor nations there has grown up between the United States and the British Empire—that is the English-speaking peoples—a form of such close collaboration in the provision of men and money and military equipment as would a few years ago have been laughed at as a dream and as an utter impossibility. It must be our endeavour for the sake of future generations to maintain this close collaboration, if not on the same lines, at least on such a basis as will enable us to act together with a common policy in assisting in the settlement of the many acute problems that will arise after the war and in maintaining world peace. Together with the United States of America and with Russia, we must supply the requisite air and armed forces necessary to keep the peace until Germany is re-educated and the aggressor nations have acquired the arts of peace.
I do not for a moment overlook the assistance in this matter that will be and must in due course be rendered by the other Allied Nations, and when possibly an International Police Force may come into being, but, to commence with, nearly all those nations, including possibly Russia herself, will have their hands full with vital problems in the restoration of order and peaceful conditions in their own countries. It will therefore necessarily fall to the United States and the British Empire to form the initial strong nucleus of any fighting forces required to keep peace and order in the world. With a view to pursuing the close collaboration necessary for that purpose between the United States of America and the
942
British Empire, various ideas are being discussed on both sides of the Atlantic for a closer political association between them, but I venture to suggest, with some considerable knowledge of the many difficulties and problems involved, that, whatever the future may bring forth, the wisest form of collaboration at any rate at the start will be that which maintains the political freedom and independence of both the United States of America and the member countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I believe, moreover, that it would be of great advantage if the countries composing the British Commonwealth of Nations were to consult with one another and act together in all matters in which such collaboration is concerned, also for carrying out the vital principles and ethics of the Atlantic Charter. There appears, indeed, to be no good reason why, owing to close collaboration between the United States and ourselves, there should be any disintegration of the British Empire. On the contrary, this welcome collaboration seems to me to provide a good reason for strengthening its unity and not for weakening it. I go further. I wish to urge that when the end of the war is in sight, there should assemble in one Imperial Conference the representatives of the British Commonwealth, India and the Colonial Empire, and that this Conference should fully discuss the major problems with which the Empire will be faced and endeavour to reach a common policy upon them. The Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, once informed Parliament that we had this in view, and I take this opportunity of emphasizing its vital importance.
My task is finished. My object in raising this Motion has been to arrest any tendency there may be to regard the British Empire as a dissolving force, to deny this and, on the other hand, to point out that the British Empire has reached a stage in its history and development when it is more than ever important to hold together and when it will be required to take an even bigger and more responsible share than ever before in promoting democratic ideals and in settling world problems. For our Empire is not merely an acquisitive organization of countries and peoples but rather the spontaneous and natural result of the principles of liberty and self-government and freedom,

943
and to play its full and appropriate part in the world development it must remain united. There are dark clouds all around us. Our Empire's safety is menaced in every direction. No part of it is immune. In fact we have lost a part of it, but we shall recover this. On every battlefield and at sea and in the air the blood of our Empire peoples is commingling in the common cause and cementing our aims and kinship. The road before us is still lined with many unknown dangers and disappointments and we cannot yet see clearly where it will lead us. But of this I am convinced, that we shall be victorious and that with faith in ourselves and our future the British Empire, united in thought and in aim and in action, can be a principal factor not only in winning the war but in winning a peace that will bring rest, tranquillity and freedom to an unhappy, weary, war-torn world. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I am sure we are all very pleased that this question has been raised. I propose to confine myself largely to the Motion as it reads—"the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire." I think he would indeed be a bold man who did not see that these are menaced at this moment. It is idle for anyone to say that the British Empire was created by force. You have only to look at the great Dominions to realize that Australia came into being as the result of discovery and settlement and colonization, and that the same can be said of New Zealand. It is true that in South Africa we did have a war, but in Canada only a small portion of the country can be said to have been won by battle. British Columbia came to us by discovery and the remains of Vancouver rest in a churchyard not very far from here.
I would rather disagree, however, with what was said by the noble Viscount as to our present position. We do not owe that position to the Balfour Declaration. We owe it to the sacrifice of gallant men on the battlefields of Europe, in France and Flanders. Long before the Conference of 1926, the Imperial War Conference of 1917 declared just what was said in the Balfour Declaration, almost word for word. They said:
944
"They deemed it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in common policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine."
That is the basis of Dominion status. It was brought about by the Imperial War Conference that met here in 1917, and which was attended by all the Prime Ministers, except that the Prime Minister of Australia was not able to arrive in time and the Prime Minister of South Africa was represented by General Smuts.
It is only fair to point out that in 1921 they had intended to have a constitutional conference to settle the relative powers and positions of the overseas Dominions. But in 1921, it having been stated with great clarity that what had happened in the meantime had established the position of the Dominions as having equal status with this country. They had an equal voice at the Peace Conference with this nation—though protests were made by foreign nations—and this nation having established their position in this country and internationally (as was pointed out by the then Prime Minister), it only remained for it to be recorded at a meeting of the Imperial Conference. This was done in 1926, as has been indicated by the noble Viscount who has moved this Motion. Then followed the Conference of 1930, to which I shall presently refer, and the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Now those countries are bound together by cords as delicate as one can conceive of, and yet very powerful and strong. It is stated in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, as indeed it was stated in the Resolutions in 1917, 1921 and 1926, that they were united by common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Now I would direct attention to the words which state that they are united

945
together and that they are freely associated. They are not held together by force but by free association, and association does not mean separation. But the point to which I would direct attention to-day has to do with the carrying into effect of the terms of the Statute and the Resolutions, It is obvious that if we are to have a Commonwealth of Nations we must in many matters have a common policy. That is obvious. It must be a common foreign policy. How that is to be brought about is, I conceive, a problem of the first magnitude. Mr. Lloyd George said that henceforth consultation must be a reality and must not be illusory. There must be continuous consultation. In other words, no step must be taken by any one member of the Commonwealth that involves any of the others, without the others having full knowledge and notice of it. We must have, by some means, a series of consultations that will ensure unity of purpose, action and policy.
That, it seems to me, cannot be said more clearly than it was said by that great statesman the late Lord Grey, speaking at one of the Imperial Conferences, a Conference at which, if my memory serves me aright, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was present as a representative of His Majesty's Government. Lord Grey said:
"It is possible to have separate fleets in a United Empire but it is not possible to have separate fleets in a United Empire without having a common foreign policy which shall determine the action of the different forces maintained in different parts of the Empire. If the action of the forces in different parts of the Empire is determined by divergent views on foreign policy it is obvious that there cannot be union, and that the Empire would not consent to share an unlimited liability the risks of which it could not gauge, because this liability would be imposed upon it by different parts of the Empire hiving different policies. Therefore, the first point I want to make is this: that the creation of separate fleets has made it essential that the foreign policy of the Empire should be a common policy; if it is to be a common policy it is obviously one in which the Dominions must be taken into consultation, which they must know, which they must understand, and which they must approve."
That was the position taken up by Lord Grey. It is the position to-day, and I think we night find in it the solution to that problem which has now, in my judgment, to be dealt with by British statesmen.
946
I conceive it to be very serious because in the overseas Dominions there is no longer that unity of thought and purpose in connexion with this war which is essential. Why it has been so it is not my purpose to inquire at the moment. But in Canada, for example, you have sharp divisions of opinion with respect to conscription. A statement was made in Parliament which indicated that a certain section of the population is very strongly opposed to engaging in European conflicts. In Australia, too, there has been criticism—to use a mild term—with respect to the Government of this island which is on an equality of status with that of Australia. Even in New Zealand, which is practically speaking purely British, in that 98 per cent. of the population is of either English or Scottish descent, there were some criticisms which it is true were less violent than those uttered in other places. In South Africa we have had during this very war a Motion introduced to the House looking to the establishment of republican institutions. Notwithstanding all that has been done there, it is fair to realize that but for the genius of one commanding figure the situation would be vastly different from what it is. In those circumstances, is it not our duty here in this country to inquire whether or not everything that could be done has been done to militate against any such impression getting abroad as that the dissolution of the British Empire is impending?
There are certain matters to which reference might be made, but to which I will not refer because it is not meet that that should be done at a time of stress and strain such as this. But I do say that it is highly important that we should establish beyond question that every policy entered into that affects the life and well-being of the overseas Dominions should only be entered into after the fullest possible consultation—consultation that is real and not illusory. I am bound to say that in some cases—and I speak with some experience in that regard—it is only to be expected that great policies must be initialed by this the most important of the partners in the Commonwealth of Nations whose population alone is 60 per cent. of the white population of the Empire, while within this very City nearly 25 per cent. of that 60 per cent. is living. So that it is quite clear that where John Bull sits is the head of the

947
table so far as foreign policy is concerned, and it is for him to initiate measures that deal with our common concerns. But the problem, as it seems to me, is this; how can you maintain autonomy in the sense in which that term is used with respect to the British Dominions, and at the same time secure that unity of purpose and action that is an essential attribute of the Commonwealth of Nations?
I am bound to say that the history of the movement to that end has been very, very difficult to follow. There were the days of Imperial Federation, the days when we sought to set up a Federation of the British Dominions. A distinguished Canadian, Sir George Parkin, was appointed to make lecture tours throughout the Empire to deal with the question of Imperial Federation, the Federation of the British Empire. There were those who believed, as I did in my younger days, that that Federation might express itself through a Parliament dealing only with Imperial affairs and with nothing else. I recall that, on the occasion of an early visit to this country, in the House of Commons one evening I met the now distinguished Minister of Economic Warfare, who was then a member of that Chamber, and he entertained the views which were so dear to me at that time and which, speaking in his personal capacity, he referred to a few days ago. I had a communication this morning from Australia expressing the strongest possible approval of the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in his personal capacity—and I think that a Minister has always the right to express his personal views with regard to any matter which affects the welfare of the country as a whole.
The effort to establish Imperial Federation fell by the wayside, together with the effort to form an Imperial Parliament, and in its place there came the decentralization movement which culminated in the Statute of Westminster. Both a once said that he believed the keynote of the Imperial Conferences was "autonomy and liberty." In 1905 Mr. Alfred Lyttelton endeavoured to bring about continuity of the Imperial Conferences by setting up a Commission to ensure continuity of purpose and of thought between these Imperial Conferences, which were held at irregular intervals. In 1911, Mr.
948
Harcourt endeavoured to set up a Committee which would ensure continuity for the purposes of the Imperial Conferences, and in 1937 some discussion of the matter took place, but nothing came of it, because certain representatives felt that it would impinge upon responsible government. The result was that no such continuity was established, by the setting up of a Committee or otherwise, and the Imperial Conferences have been held at irregular intervals, and there has been very great difficulty in maintaining that consultation which is so important.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier realized that in 1911, and, while he was opposed to the attitude taken by Sir Joseph Ward, of looking towards the establishment of an Imperial Council of State, he did propose that there should be set up a Royal Commission to investigate the resources of the Dominions and report. That Commission was appointed in 1912, and sat until 1917, when it made a very voluminous Report. It had taken evidence in many countries, it had held many meetings and had examined some 800 witnesses, and, if your Lordships care to consult the Report, you will find that it is an encyclopædia of the resources of the British Dominions. The Commission recommended the establishment of an Imperial Development Board, which was to act in an advisory-capacity to the Imperial Conferences. With that astuteness which characterized him so often, Sir Wilfrid Laurier realized that, having taken the position which he did in 1907 and 1911, it was desirable that something should be done along the lines which I have indicated, and so he proposed the setting up of this Advisory Committee to the Imperial Conferences, thereby maintaining some measure of continuity in their proceedings.
Arising out of the results of the establishment of equality of status and the recognition of the equality of the Dominions with this country, it became essential that the Dominions should negotiate treaties and appoint Ministers, and, as is well known to your Lordships, they in fact sent Ministers to various foreign countries and they exercized their right to make treaties. It is always in my mind that the late Sir John Macdonald, than whom no greater Britisher ever lived, said at the time that the Treaty of Washington was negotiated that he almost felt impelled to give up his position,

949
because he was being urged so constantly to make sacrifices on the part of Canada in the interests of the relations between the United States and this island. But he remained, and, as your Lordships know, the Treaty of Washington was approved by the Canadian Parliament, but not by the American Senate.
We are now faced with this situation. We have these great self-governing Dominions enjoying almost all the powers of independent States, but united together by common allegiance to the Crown, and, in the language of the Statute, freely associated as members of a Commonwealth of Nations. They are naturally concerned with every act which takes place in this kingdom which affects the Empire as a whole. They are interested in every matter of common concern, because I believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier put the matter properly when he said "When England is at war, Canada is at war, and every part of the Empire is at war." It does not follow, however, that every part of the Empire participates in the war, and indeed it has been pointed out that, in the Boer War, Canada permitted volunteers to go from her shores, but she paid no part of the bill. We did not participate to the extent of paying for the soldiers who went, and participation in the war certainly involves the approval of the Parliaments of the overseas Dominions. It is well known that one of the Dominions mentioned in the Statute of Westminster claims to be neutral in this war. It is known that two others of the Dominions contemplated neutrality, but public sentiment was too strong, and they are now active participants in the war. My own view is that there is no such thing as neutrality on the part of any one of the nations of the British Empire when any one of them is at war.
I need hardly say that this House is the Court of last resort in matters of law. As long ago as 1905 a question was considered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in a case which arose out of the Boer War and which came from New South Wales. A citizen of New South Wales joined the second contingent from New South Wales to South Africa, and the Government of New South Wales agreed to pay him 10s. a day from the time he left New South Wales until he returned. He went to the war, he survived, and he returned home; but, while he was in South Africa, he received from
950
the Imperial Government—that is, from the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—4s. a day. When he came to adjust his accounts with the Government of New South Wales, they took the position that they would deduct that 4s. a day from the 10s. which he had been promised, because the contract was for 10s. a day. He took the view that he had a right to the 10s. from New South Wales, they having made the contract, regardless of what was paid to him by the Imperial Government.
The case went to trial, and it was tried before a distinguished Judge, who found in favour of the soldier from New South Wales. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court of that State, and, as a result the judgment of the trial Judge was sustained. There was then an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That Committee was presided over by the late Lord Halsbury, then Lord Chancellor, and the Committee, as I think every legal member of your Lordships' House will agree, was a very strong one. It consisted, besides the Lord Chancellor, of Lords Macnaghten, Davey, Robertson, Lindley and Sir Arthur Wilson. Lord Halsbury delivered the judgment of the Committee in these words:
"The plaintiff was in the service of the Crown and his payment was to be made by the Crown. Whether the money by which he was paid was to be found by the Colony or the Mother Country was not a matter which could in any way affect his relation to his employer, the Crown. The learned Acting Chief Justice, in giving his judgment in this case, said: 'The King has no concern with payments for services rendered in this Colony. The obligation is with the Government of New South Wales.' And, so far as their Lordships can understand, this is the ground upon which the judgment rests. But, with great respect to the learned Judge, this is entirely erroneous. The Government with relation to this contract is the King himself. The soldier is his soldier, and the supplies granted to His Majesty for the purpose of paying his soldiers, whether they be granted by the Imperial or the Colonial Legislature, are money granted to the King. And the Appropriation Act, whenever an Appropriation Act is passed, simply operates to prevent its being applied to any other purpose. Under these circumstances money paid was money paid for the services rendered to the King, and no other payment could possibly be due upon the contract declared on."
That is an authoritative statement of what I conceive still to be the law. The Statute of Westminster does not affect that question. The Crown is the Crown. It is the Crown in Canada, it is the Crown in Australia, it is the Crown in South

951
Africa, and it is the Crown here. The service of the Crown, as pointed out, is to be compensated for by the supplies voted to the Crown, and every Supply Act, as every one of your Lordships knows, is directed to the King. The supply is granted to the Crown to make good the requirements of the public service, and the Appropriation Act is merely to appropriate it to particular purposes. An examination of a Supply Bill in any one of the overseas Dominions will show that it is practically in the same form as it is here.
That judgment, in my poor opinion, is a clear statement of the unity of the Crown in every part of the King's Dominions, whether it be Canada or Australia or here. That being so, it seems to me to be quite impossible to speak of neutrality, for one can speak of participation in a war, but not of neutrality. There are within one of the Dominions mentioned in the Statute of Westminster a Legation of Italy and a Legation of Germany. Can anyone for a single moment say that that does not contravene the provision of the Statute of Westminster by which we are freely associated for the purpose of helping one another? What country involved in war as a part of the British Empire, including this Kingdom, is not concerned with the injury that is done to the whole by the maintenance of these two Legations in what is called a neutral country? Can there be a neutral country under the British flag? Can there be a neutral country that is part of the British Dominions? Car there be a neutral country within the Statute of Westminster? These are questions which the Lord Chancellor may answer, but for which I find no satisfactory answer at all, none whatever. That is all I have to say in respect of that particular point.
But now I desire to apply what I have said to a concrete case. Recently we made a Treaty with Russia. A Committee of the Imperial Conference in 1930, presided over by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, dealt with the question of treaties between any one of the King's Dominions and foreign countries. These are the words of the Report:
"Previous Imperial Conferences have made a number of recommendations with regard to the communication of information and the system of consultation in relation to treaty negotiations and the conduct of foreign affairs
952
generally. The main points can be summarized as follows:

(1) Any of His Majesty's Governments conducting negotiations should inform the other Governments of His Majesty in case they should be interested and give them the opportunity of expressing their views, if they think that their interests may be affected.

(2) Any of His Majesty's Governments on receiving such information should, if it desires to express any views, do so with reasonable promptitude.

(3) None of His Majesty's Governments can take any steps which might involve the other Governments of His Majesty in any active obligations without their definite assent."

I will not further read from the Report of Lord Sankey's Committee dealing with these points, because it would be an unfair trespass upon your Lordships' time, but we made a Treaty in this country on May 26, 1942—a few weeks ago—and Article III of Part II reads:

"(1) The High Contracting Parties declare their desire to unite with other like-minded States in adopting proposals for common action to preserve peace and resist aggression in the post-war period.

"(2) Pending the adoption of such proposals, they will after the termination of hostilities take all the measures in their power to render impossible a repetition of aggression and violation of the peace by Germany or any of the States associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe."

Then comes Article IV:
"Should one of the High Contracting Parties during the post-war period become involved in hostilities with Germany or any of the States mentioned in Article III (2), in consequence of an attack by that State against that Party, the other High Contracting Party will at once give to the Contracting Party so involved in hostilities all the military and other support and assistance in his power."
That is war.
The question that I intimated to the Leader of the House that I thought he might deal with in his reply is to what extent the Dominions were consulted with respect to that paragraph and to what extent was it made known to them that one part of the British Empire—namely, this country—will be at war under the conditions mentioned in Article IV? The very words "military and other support and assistance in its power" indicate war. That is a pertinent and important question, for if, as I think, the effect would be, if there were a war launched under that paragraph, that some of the Dominions at least would plead that they were to be neutral—which in my judgment they cannot be for the reasons I

953
have given—that would at once raise a question of the utmost importance and of the greatest magnitude. Statesmen in the Dominions have dealt with it, but no sufficient answer has yet been found. Statesmen here are constantly dealing with it, and it is a matter of some satisfaction to know that the Leader of this House and Secretary of State for the Dominions has set up an organization within the office that will do much to lessen any possible friction with respect to a matter of this kind. But this is a concrete case about which I think there should be the fullest possible explanation, for if in some parts of the King's Dominions it were known that under certain eventualities they might themselves again be at war, it would not be pleasant to contemplate the attitude of mind of the people of those Dominions.
I conceive that to be a matter of great importance. It is not a question of theory. It is an actual reality, and in my judgment it should be dealt with as such, especially in view of the fact that at the Imperial Conference of 1930 it was established by a report written by a member of the United Kingdom Delegation that there should be no treaties made that had any effect upon any other country in the British Commonwealth of Nations except with the definite assent of that community. These are not theories that I am presenting to your Lordships. They are matters of vital concern, as was said by a Canadian Prime Minister, the late Sir Robert Borden, on more than one occasion, for if we are to have adequate consultation, if we are to have united action, if we are to have a clear understanding, in the words of the late Lord Grey, of the whole implication of our actions, then it follows there must be an improvement in the present methods of communication and consultation.
I am very hopeful, in view of the improvements that have been made in the air service during the last few years, that it may be possible at least twice or thrice a year for the Prime Ministers to meet at the various Capitals for the purpose of discussing these matters of common concern—in Canberra, in Delhi, in London, in Ottawa, or in Wellington. They might meet and discuss these matters of common concern twice or thrice a year because, in 1921, when they passed their resolution indicating that it was no longer necessary to have a Constitutional Conference, they
954
said they should meet annually, or more often, as was found possible. That comprises all I desire to say on this particular point. If the solidarity of the British Empire is to be maintained, if its unity is to be maintained within the terms of the Motion now before your Lordships' House, it can only be done, in view of what has transpired, by making it a part of the responsibility of everyone in these Dominions, including this country, to agree upon whatever policy is to be given effect to. Matters of common concern must therefore be dealt with or we fall. There is no alternative. All you have to do is to study the conditions from day to day in the Press of the overseas Dominions to realize the soundness of what I say.
There I shall leave the matter, but there is one further thing I wish to say—it was referred to the other day by my noble friend Lord Elton—and that is the lack in this Kingdom of knowledge of, and pride in, the Empire. I believe Canadians are prouder of the British Empire than it seems to me people are in this Kingdom. When I think of its achievements, of what it has done for mankind, especially for the right of men to worship their own God in their own way without any man saying them "Nay," one cannot understand this talk of an international patriotism rather than a patriotism of Empire. Part of our difficulties to-day arise from the fact that, for some strange reason I cannot describe, men of some importance in the State urge that we should not be bothered about patriotism of Empire, but rather concern ourselves with an international patriotism, that we should frown upon joining the Forces rather than assist, and that various things so many of us hold dear as life itself should be treated as mere trifles and baubles and unimportant.
This British Empire has been built up by great sacrifices, and by men in this Chamber who gave their lives, as Pitt the Younger did, in defence of everything we hold most dear, and his father the Great Chatham practically died in your Lordships' House. You have a long tradition of great names of men of the past who made such sacrifices and gave their lives for us that we might survive, not, as I said the other day, by accident, but for a great purpose—a purpose that is felt in every part of the world to-night. The people who are concerned

955
about our fate are not only people who live within the narrow confines of this island, but people who are scattered throughout every part of the world and are not even people who live under our own flag only. They realize the contributions we have made to world freedom and to the enjoyment of those things we hold most dear—dear as life itself. For what would life be to any of us within the British Empire if we had to live the life of those who live in Germany to-day, for instance? Can we contemplate it? And yet that is the alternative. That is the reason I feel so greatly concerned about the implementing in the fullest and to the last detail of all those obligations which we have assumed at Conferences jointly with one another, that we might be indeed freely associated, owing allegiance to one Crown, and as one united Commonwealth making not only for our own peace and happiness, but for the peace and happiness of all mankind.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I feel that anything I may say to your Lordships must appear something of a bathos after the brilliant eloquence of the eminent statesman and sturdy Imperialist to whom we have just listened. I am not equipped to deal with the matters of high politics and of outstanding constitutional importance to which he has referred, but I would only venture humbly to endorse at the outset the view that we as an Empire must have a common foreign policy. This, I also concur, must be founded not upon dictation by the Mother Country, but by the free expression of opinion of what are, after all, now self-governing nations, possessing absolute equality of authority, and after full and free consultation between them and the British Government. I particularly welcome what he has said about the prevailing ignorance that exists between this country and its people and the overseas countries of the Crown. That is the subject to which I was going to ask your Lordships particularly to turn your attention. As the noble Viscount indicated, there must be a better exchange of view between the Heads of States as well as a more thorough knowledge on the part of the peoples of these States of each other, their ambitions, their outlook, and the purposes of the bond of Empire.
The question that is down on the Paper is one that concerns the unity and
956
solidarity of the Empire, both now and in days to come. So far as the present solidarity of the Empire is concerned, I for my part have no fear. After all, it is conspicuously demonstrated by the loyal co-operation and splendid heroism of the men who belong to our Fighting Forces from every part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But when we study the important question of how that unity and solidarity are to be continuously maintained, I submit, without any fear of challenge, that they must depend mainly on a greater knowledge of Empire countries, their peoples, their ideals, and their outlook on life, on the part of our own Ministers of the Crown in this country, the civil servants who guide and instruct them, and the general British public from whom the human material for both is derived. Otherwise you are bound to have the prevalence of a continuous element of insularity and myopia which is so absolutely false to any possible ideals of Imperial progress. This knowledge of the Empire, now so deplorably and in my judgment dangerously scant, can only be derived from two main sources—namely, education in our schools and travel or residence in Empire countries. It is true that there is a third source, and a valuable one, but it is temporary and transient—namely, the war-time intermingling of our fighting men drawn from all parts of the Empire.
As regards education, I too had intended to refer to the remarkable and eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the debate which I, unfortunately, could not attend, that took place in this House last Wednesday. Ignorance of the Empire is, I submit, due to lack of instruction in bur schools, and a lack of knowledge on the part of their teachers. Not one school in ten in this country has a map of the British Empire on its walls, or indeed a map in which Empire countries are clearly emphasized by colour or otherwise. I happen to be president of what is known as the Empire Day Movement, and in that connexion an effort was made some four or five years ago to provide maps of the British Empire for all the schools, primary and secondary, in this country. I am bound to say that the map makers demonstrated considerable interest in the scheme and were prepared to produce those maps at no more than cost price. Unfortunately the Empire Day Movement had not the

957
financial resources itself to do anything in the matter, and the scheme has, for the time being, been deferred. But surely that is a matter that the Government of this country might take in hand. At any rate it is by visual instruction that you can evoke some interest on the part of our young people in the great Commonwealth of Nations of which they will some day find themselves the trustees.
I am bound to say that the ignorance of children on the subject of the Empire in our schools is unpleasantly significant. I took some little trouble after returning from New Zealand in 1935, to visit a few schools in my own county, and with the leave of the headmaster catechized the children as to the location of certain Empire capitals. In two schools that I visited I asked any child who knew the right answer to my questions to hold up his or her hand, and in both schools not a single answer was correct. According to them Melbourne was in South America, Bengal was in China, and Ottawa was in the United States. My noble friend Lord Bennett must agree that that is not very encouraging. I went so far in those schools to ask the headmaster whether he had heard of Waitangi. I may remind your Lordships that but for Waitangi and its Treaty New Zealand would not be part of the British Empire but would belong to France. Neither of those headmasters had the faintest idea where Waitangi was, or knew anything about its Treaty.
I do not think, if I may venture to say so, that our English Press helps us very materially in developing an interest in Empire affairs. By contrast two-thirds of the whole of our very well-edited and conducted New Zealand papers contain full information about the Old Country and its doings. Shortly after I returned from New Zealand in 1935 I met one of the most eminent statesmen of Australia then in this country and he put to me this question: "Cannot you, Lord Bledisloe, having been lately Governor-General of one of our Dominions, induce some of your British newspapers to give a little more news about Empire countries and their affairs? "He went on to say that he had made a careful study during the previous year as to the column space devoted to Empire news and to the news of foreign countries respectively, and as a result he discovered that in the case of one newspaper at any rate
958
the affairs of one single European country, which shall be nameless, occupied more space than the whole of the British Empire put together. I am going to venture from my place in this House to make an appeal, if I may be allowed to do so, to the British Press to help us, as they can very materially, in this matter.
I hope I shall not be treading on too delicate ground when I suggest that our ex-Pro-Consuls, and ex-Prime Ministers of our Dominions, when they honour us with their presence in the Old Land, be utilized in an advisory capacity by the Government and their advisers. No representative of the Crown who resides for five years continuously in an Empire country, in intimate contact with its inhabitants, its institutions, its industries and economic problems and its general outlook on life, can fail to be at least something of an authority upon its right and wise treatment at the hands of the Imperial Government; and yet these people are hardly ever consulted by the powers that be in this country. They naturally are reluctant to force their views officiously on those possibly less well-informed if they do not themselves seek them. Within six months after my return from New Zealand in 1935 I asked six of the most eminent ex-Pro-Consuls in this country whether, and to what extent, they had been spontaneously consulted about the affairs of the territories over whose administrations they had presided, and the reply of them all was the same, "Not at all." In some cases and on some specific subjects, it is perfectly true, they had themselves tendered unsolicited their opinions or advice.
I hope sincerely I shall not be misunderstood. In what I say I am reflecting to some extent, I think, the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, when he suggested something of the same sort in the last debate upon Empire affairs about two months ago. He indicated the advisability of setting up a Colonial Advisory Council. Personally, I should much like to see the establishment of an Overseas Empire Advisory Council of which ex-Governors-General, ex-Governors and ex-Prime Ministers of our Dominions should be ex-officio members. It would, I am sure, bring fresh vitality based on knowledge and experience into our Governmental solution of pressing overseas problems.

959
In this connexion I cannot help comparing the interest displayed by the Dominions and their Governments in each other, which to my mind is a greater and more live interest than is sometimes displayed by this country in any one of its grown-up daughters. I paid a visit to South Africa in 1936 as the guest of the Union Government, and before I left after a month or six weeks tour, which I thought was all too short a period in view of the request that was made to me, I was asked by the South African branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association to deliver an address upon similarities between New Zealand and South Africa, under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and in the presence of my good friend General Smuts. I had, I may say in passing, to give as the answer to that particular question that I could find no similarity whatever, except the warmth of hospitality, the almost continuous sunshine, and the fact that nine-tenths of the farms were subject to a heavy mortgage. However, I only mention that incident as showing the obviously keen interest on the part of some of the Dominions in the affairs of the other Dominions of the Crown.
May I also indicate what I think is a little bit unfortunate and is largely due, I think, to the lack of travel or residence in other parts of the British Empire on the part of those who are responsible here for guiding Empire policy—namely, the inaccurate views which are so often expressed in both Houses of Parliament in regard to the outlook, the ambitions and the prudent treatment of native populations? I do not think the average native in our tropical and sub-tropical countries overseas has any great interest in representative government or the political development of the various tribes that arc to be found in those countries. I am bound to say that I think members of both Houses of Parliament overrate the intelligence and the standard of development of many of those for whom they purport to speak. When four years ago I was acting as Chairman of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission, many native Chiefs came before us for examination and cross-examination, and I found that the average native Chief was utterly apathetic upon the particular subject upon which we desired to have his opinion. What he was
960
far keener about than anything else was to have a sufficient number of cattle to purchase more wives.
To show your Lordships how very difficult it is for us in this highly developed democratic country to visualize accurately the outlook of these people in an early stage of development, I would mention one little incident that occurred in Nyasaland. The purpose for which I and my colleagues were sent to South Central Africa, was to report as to whether Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were to be amalgamated. I asked a paramount Chief what were his views about amalgamation. "Oh," he said, "'amalgamation'—that is what my brother was sent to prison for." It turned out that his brother had been sent to prison for stealing amalgam when he was employed in one of the mines in Southern Rhodesia. It may be said that this is trifling with a great subject, but what I am trying to show is that we in this country, in the absence of travel, education or residence, do not sufficiently visualize the conditions obtaining in many parts of our overseas Empire.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, spoke of that delicate cord which binds different parts of the Empire together—sentiment, tradition, ideals and the like. I should like to say that for my part, after visiting all the Dominions and certain other parts of the Empire and residing for five years in the most distant of them, I am perfectly certain that if we try either by the Balfour Declaration or by some statutory enactment to bring about the greater solidarity of the Empire we are almost certain to fail. It is a loosely-knit organization which is far better left alone to develop by a sense of brotherhood and by the commonalty of traditions and outlook, than by attempting to fasten anything in the nature of statutory shackles upon it. Of that I am convinced.
May I in conclusion quote what I thought was a perfectly admirable letter addressed to The Times on April 13, 1940, by a great Imperialist, a gallant gentleman and one who was in his day a distinguished Pro-Consul—namely, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes? He said:
"The British Empire can be made the greatest instrument of civilization in the world and the most varied and united of free human associations. Here is a faith and a hope big

961
enough for all to share and supremely worth fighting for against enemies abroad and laggards or critics at home. The time and the opportunity are now when the men and women of the Empire are welded into a single spirit of resolve and endeavour."
I do not think that I could possibly better those words, and with those words I should like to support—so far as I feel justified in expressing an opinion—everything that has been said by the great Imperialist who preceded me.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has raised in the Motion which he has put before your Lordships the whole question of the future of the British Empire. I must confess that I, personally, have approached this debate with some trepidation for the future of the British Empire is a subject in dealing with which Ministers must walk as delicately as ever did Agag. Not very long ago one of my colleagues indulged in some brief speculation on this subject, and he found himself very violently attacked both in Parliament and in the Press. He was quite wrongly attacked, I think, and I am very glad to have the very powerful support of Lord Bennett for my view. Whether all noble Lords agree with my noble friend or not—and noble Lords very seldom agree with a speaker on everything—it seems to me that we should all agree that he stimulated consideration of these problems, and that, at the present time, is very valuable. One will never get anywhere by behaving like an ostrich and burying one's head in the sand.
With that experience before me it is perhaps natural that I should have felt a certain anxiety when I knew that I was required to make a speech on the whole future of the British Empire. I do not complain that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, should have raised this subject for, as I have already said, in my view the more we think about this question the better. But noble Lords have raised, in the course of their speeches, a number of fairly controversial subjects, and I am quite certain that they, in their wisdom and experience, and the House as a whole in its wisdom and experience, will not expect a detailed answer to all of them. But, at any rate, I think there is one proposition with regard to the
962
British Empire which can be made without fear of contradiction. It is not a static institution. It is dynamic in character. It is a living organism. The relationship of the component parts has changed fundamentally during the last decades, as Lord Bennett has shown, and is likely to continue to change and develop in the years that are before us. In this respect I think the British Empire is different from most of the great Empires of the past. They were rigid in character, and, what is more, they were imperialistic in the worst sense of the word. That is to say they were predatory—based upon a principle of exploitation. These earlier Empires consisted nearly always of a dominant nation and subject nations who were kept down by an elaborate machinery of armed force, secret police, and so on, for the benefit of the dominant Power. We have had many examples of that. To a certain extent I think it was true of the Roman Empire, and to a certain extent of the Napoleonic Empire. It is certainly true, in the most extreme and atrocious form, of the Third Reich as we see it to-day.
Our British conception has, I think, always been entirely different. The Empire has been compared to a family. My right honourable friend Mr. Macmillan, referring to the structure of the Empire in another place the other day when the Colonial Estimates were being considered, rightly pointed out that to try to draw such an analogy exactly would be fallacious for, as he truly emphasized, in a family parents die, and are succeeded by their children, That is not true of nations. I very much hope that it is not going to be true of Great Britain. But with this essential exception I think a certain comparison can be drawn between the family and the relationship of Great Britain and the Dominions and Colonies. There is, for instance, the same alteration in the relationship as the children grow up. In the early days of the family, children are young and inexperienced, and not able to face problems of life for themselves. Therefore they have to be protected and educated. But gradually they grow up and begin to take their own line—to think for themselves. Eventually they become independent entities, independent personalities, and, finally, if they are worth anything at all, they become self-supporting. They

963
are no longer dependent upon their parents, but they remain members of the family still bound to each other by ties of affection, and still having a responsibility to help and protect each other. They all benefit, and they know that they benefit, from that mutual relationship.
That I think is the experience in all well-conducted families, and I think it is equally true of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The successful operation of this conception, of course, puts a great responsibility on the Mother country herself. She has got to recognize that her family are growing up, and that is always a very difficult thing for any parents to do with regard to any children. They always tend to try and keep their children on leading strings too long. Such a course leads finally to friction and alienation of the child. Indeed, the child may—and in a number of cases does—break away entirely from the family, though the passage of time nearly always softens and even wipes away bitterness in later life. We, in Great Britain, have had salutary experiences of this kind. I do not wish to go into those experiences, but they may have been almost worth while if they have taught us an essential and invaluable lesson. I think that they have, that we have taken advantage of it, and that it has ever since been our aim to make the links between ourselves and the daughter nations not rigid and intolerable, but as flexible as possible.
The furthest stage which has yet been reached is the Statute of Westminster, which has been referred to in the debate to-day. That Statute recognizes the Dominions as self-governing nations and as arbiters of their own fate. It is our public recognition of their maturity. It is a very far-reaching document. It seemed to me at the time—and I think we should all believe it so to be—essential and wise. I think it has already been justified by events which have happened since. So far from the links between ourselves and the Dominions and Colonies having become looser, they have grown closer. They have stood the strain of two of the greatest wars in history. From either of these wars, from the second of these wars undoubtedly, the Dominions could constitutionally have stood aside had they wished, but, with one exception with which your Lordships are familiar, they
964
have not done so. On the contrary, they have thrown all their energies and resources into the struggle in a way which constitutes a complete justification, I think, of the policy adopted in the Statute of Westminster.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, at the beginning of his speech paid a noble and eloquent tribute to the heroic contribution of the Dominions in the present struggle. I suppose there is no one who knows more than I do of what the Dominions have done, and I do feel that it is a thrilling thought that men and women should have come, as the people of the Dominions have done, from the very ends of the earth to fight for the principles in which they believe. I echo everything that the noble Viscount said about the Empire training scheme, one of the greatest institutions for war which has ever been devised. I also echo everything that he said about the valour of the Dominion and Colonial troops. Nothing which we can say can possibly do justice to their courage, to their constancy and to their passionate loyalty to the cause of liberty, for which the British Empire stands. If, however, that happy situation is to continue—although, of course, the constitutional relationships may alter—it is essential that we should have a very close collaboration in the future, and if possible an even closer collaboration than in the past.
On the last occasion on which I addressed your Lordships on this subject, which was on April 2, 1941, and which was also in answer to a Motion by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I described the machinery which had at that time been built up to ensure this collaboration. I said that there were three main channels of communication. There are first of all the United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions, who maintain, as your Lordships know, the very closest contact with the Dominion Prime Ministers and Governments. Secondly, there are the Dominion High Commissioners in the United Kingdom, who perform the same functions in this country; and, as your Lordships know, their task is now greatly facilitated by the daily meetings which they have with the Dominions Secretary in the Dominions Office. This enables them to keep in constant touch with the events of the day, and with the deliberations and decisions of the War Cabinet.

965
It would perhaps be convenient if, in this connexion, I said a word about the question of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, in his very powerful and moving speech. The noble Viscount rightly emphasized the importance of a common foreign policy between the United Kingdom and the Dominions, and in that connexion he asked, as I understood him, what the position of the Dominions was with regard to the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. As your Lordships know, the Anglo-Soviet Treaty does not directly involve the Dominions; that is to say, it is a Treaty between the United Kingdom Government and the Soviet Government, and it does not bind the Dominion Governments. We all know, however, that they are vitally interested in it, and I should like to make it quite clear—and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so—that the Dominion Governments were in fact consulted at every stage of the negotiations. It is quite evident, from statements which have been made by those Governments since the signature of the Treaty, that the Treaty had their full approval. I shall not quote those statements, because I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but I can assure you that they are both whole-hearted and unqualified. The same is true of the Mutual Aid Agreement; there the Dominions were fully consulted in the preliminary negotiations, and I understand that it has their full approval.
I do not pretend, and I suppose no one would pretend, that the task of securing an identical foreign policy for the whole of the British Commonwealth is an easy one. It is a very difficult one indeed, when we consider that the different members of the Commonwealth are faced with rather different conditions, and with different geographical conditions, apart from anything else. Clearly, however, it is most desirable to attain it so far as possible; and that is the value of the machinery for consultation which has been built up, very largely since the war, and which is being further developed, as I hope to show in a moment. I do not think that even now that machinery—if one may use such an expression about machinery—is entirely watertight, but I see no other way, apart from consultation, by which unanimity may be sought, and no other way, at any rate, which is consistent with the complete independence of
966
decision which now exists in the British Commonwealth.
I have given your Lordships some account of two methods of communication between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. There is, of course, a third method, the method of direct communication between Prime Minister and Prime Minister, and that is resorted to whenever circumstances require it, although it is not the normal method of communication, the normal method being through the Dominions Office. In addition, there have been since the beginning of the war, as your Lordships know, periodic visits by Dominion Prime Ministers and Ministers to this country. Since I spoke on this subject in April, 1941, we have had immensely valuable visits from Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, and from Dr. Evatt, the Australian Minister. I believe that those visits from Ministers constitute a method which is almost more useful than any other means of communication, because the Ministers keep in touch with both ends. They see the situation here, and they then go back to their own country and know the situation there. That forms a very realistic type of link between the two countries.
That was the machinery which existed when I spoke just over a year ago, but since then it has been both improved and developed. To-day, for instance, the Dominions Secretary is a member of the War Cabinet, which was not so at the time when I spoke last. Clearly he ought to be a member of the War Cabinet, for he is one of the most important members of the Government, by virtue of his position. In addition, the representative of Australia to-day attends the meetings of the War Cabinet; and I think that both we and Australia are very fortunate in having such an immensely able and experienced man as Mr. Bruce as the representative of Australia. He has a lengthy knowledge of politics and of international affairs, both as Prime Minister of Australia and as Australian representative at Geneva, and there is no one whose advice could be better worth having at the present time. These facilities, of which Australia has availed herself, are, of course, open to any other Dominion which wishes to take advantage of them.
In addition, we have evolved additional machinery for liaison at a lower level. In

967
recent months, the Dominion Governments were told by His Majesty's Government here that we were prepared to agree to the appointment of Service liaison officers, to keep in touch with the Chiefs of Staff organization. The purpose of that was that these officers should be able to let their own Governments know about strategic plans during the formative stage, in case the Dominion Governments should wish to make any comments on them. I think that that is a very important step, and already more than one Dominion has taken advantage of it. A similar arrangement has been made with regard to foreign affairs. There is now a senior officer of the Foreign Office who is appointed specially as liaison officer with the Dominions. He attends every daily meeting of the High Commissioners at the Dominions Office, and he is always available for consultation on individual problems which may affect one Dominion or another. Finally, the closest co-operation is maintained in the field of production, supply, the assignment of finished munitions, the allocation of raw materials, and so on, and the machinery set up under the combined United Kingdom-United States organizations is such as to ensure that the fullest account is taken of Dominion and other Empire interests in the matters coming before the various Boards. These are just examples of the constant growth and development that are taking place in Imperial relations.
Up to now I have dealt entirely with what I may call the grown-up children, the self-governing Dominions, but I have said nothing about the non-self-governing Colonies, with which I myself am to-day principally concerned. I did this deliberately, because we have had a good many debates in this House in recent weeks upon Colonial questions, and I do not think that there is anything that I could very usefully add at the present stage. I should like to emphasize, however, that the same principles apply to the Colonies as apply to the Dominions. It is true that they are not yet grown up, it is true that they are still in a state of tutelage. Some are more advanced and some less advanced, but everywhere our aim is that the people of a territory should play their full part in the government of the country. That is bound to be a gradual process. It is a question of political evolution. But that is our aim, and I
968
see no reason why any British Government should depart from it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has asked me about the future. Of this, as he will appreciate, it is not very easy for me to-day to speak. The question of a development of inter-Imperial machinery is not a matter for a unilateral declaration by one member of the British Commonwealth. The noble Viscount in his speech, I think, said that there were three main bonds that united the Empire. The first was common allegiance to the Crown; the second was the bond of sentiment arising from a common kinship and language; and the third was freedom of thought, action and expression. I myself would add a fourth, the bond of mutual interest. Together the members of the British Commonwealth can have, I suppose, the greatest influence for good of any great Power in the world to-day. Their importance in the solution of the far-reaching problems of the post-war world, problems both political and economic, problems such as the problem of under-consumption, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, spoke—their importance for that purpose so long as they remain together cannot be overestimated; but if they once became separated into their component units, then they would find that all their influence was gone. They would be merely a number of comparatively unimportant States, without power and without authority. Now I think it is essential that neither we nor the Dominions should forget that fundamental fact.
What we need now is not only to strengthen but to multiply the bonds that unite us, bonds political, economic, social and educational, to which reference has been made to-day. Both the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made the point about education, I thought with very great force. They rightly stressed the need for education in the schools as to what the Empire means to us, and I am afraid we should all of us agree that there has been a lamentable shortcoming in education with regard to Imperial questions in the past. It has been a great gap in our educational system. The House may, therefore, like to know that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education is at present taking an active interest in increasing the study and knowledge of the British

969
Empire. The question of providing suitable text-books at the present time, as noble Lords will well realize, is not a very easy one, but it is being tackled, and I understand successfully tackled. Also he proposes to set up a course for teachers in the history of the English-speaking peoples, which will, of course, include primarily the Dominions, but also the United States as well. It seems to me that we need more and more contacts between the members of the British Commonwealth. That is, I think, the main point which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who speaks with great personal experience, made, and I am quite certain it is true.
Lord Elibank asked whether there would be an Imperial Conference at the end of the war. Well, I think we may be quite certain there will be an Imperial Conference at the end of the war: there can hardly be any manner of doubt about that. But I would add this. Imperial Conferences undoubtedly have a vital importance in the machinery of the Empire, but in the nature of things Imperial Conferences can only take place rather seldom. The next generation is probably likely to have to face strains and stresses such as the British Empire has never had to stand up against in the past.
The Empire is coming to a period when unity will be absolutely essential for it if it is to survive, and it seems to me—and I put the point to noble Lords with great deference—that we want to make our mutual protection—because it is a mutual protection—a coat of mail composed of innumerable links, strong and subtle, of affection, sentiment, mutual interest and so on, both in our public life and in our private life. The machinery which has been set up during this war, I think, does mark an important stage in creating this coat of mail, and I hope very much—I think we all hope—that that machinery will be not only maintained but further developed after the war. And perhaps this sort of machinery which we have set up here may be set up in the Dominions as well. Personally—and I am speaking entirely for myself—I should like to see Dominion civil servants in United Kingdom Government offices and United Kingdom civil servants in Dominion Government offices; I believe that would make for mutual understanding and knowledge.
970
But that, of course, is a matter not only for His Majesty's Government but for the Dominion Governments as well. As I think Lord Bledisloe said, unity really depends, and depends almost entirely, on mutual knowledge. I certainly think that the knowledge that Governors have gained during their Governorships should be taken fully into account when these Govenorships come to an end.
In conclusion I would just say this. I do hope that other nations—not the British Commonwealth—will make no mistake about the present position. The British Empire is not dead, it is not dying, it is not even going into a decline. So far as it is suffering pains, or has suffered pains, I believe them to have been growing pains, and if those pains are properly and sensibly and sympathetically treated, as I am quite confident they will be, I feel that the British Commonwealth will emerge from our present trials stronger, wiser and more united than it has ever been before in our long history.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I feel that at this somewhat late hour some of you deserve very hearty commiseration in that I am asking you to listen to remarks from many of which I am afraid you will differ strongly. I can only say two things in explanation. The first is that I feel that many of the things which I am about to say do need saying in the interests of the Empire; the second is that some of the remarks that your Lordships deliver cause me quite as much mental pain as I am afraid that some of mine will cause you. For the promotion of the unity and solidarity of the Empire I feel that two things are essential. The first is that the Government should make their plans well in advance, taking into full consideration even the most unpleasant and unwelcome possibilities. If they are determined, as they appear to be, not to end the war until they have conquered Europe and a great part of Asia, they should decide how this can be done, even if things again go badly in Africa, and even if they go badly in Russia and China as well, and if they are obliged to come to the conclusion that the conquest of Europe and a great part of Asia is impossible without the help of a Continental Ally, then they would do well to explore the alternative policy, which I suggested on the last occasion when I spoke in your Lordships'

971
House, and in the interests of all concerned they would do well to do so while all our Allies are still in the field.
Politicians would do well to remember that there is nothing heroic about talk of fighting in the "last ditch" if they themselves do not intend to occupy that most unpleasant cavity. They would also do well to remember that there is nothing wise about fighting in the "last ditch" if, after the battle, defeat is probable—defeat which might have been avoided by a negotiated peace. There is also a good deal of unreflective talk about the need for national unity at this time. Now the right kind of national unity is a most necessary thing, but it has got to be unity in pursuit of a sensible objective and behind the right kind of leaders. The Gadarene swine were united in purpose, and presumably had confidence in their leaders, but as the latter were pig-headed in every sense of the term, the result of their leadership was disaster to the herd.
The other essential thing is that we should rid ourselves for good and all of wishful thinking and optimism which is not grounded on sure foundations. During the comparatively short time I have been a member of your Lordships' House I have been much struck by the spirit of courtesy and friendliness which exists here, and by the tolerant hearing which is usually given even to the expression of unpopular and unusual opinions; but I am afraid I must add that I have been literally appalled at times by the extent to which many of your Lordships seem to be living in a cloud-cuckoo-land of complete unreality with regard to very important events which preceded the war, with regard to the military situation and our chances of victory, and with regard to the character of foreign statesmen. Some of the latter are treated as absolute devils, whose sins are quite unforgivable and with whom it is unthinkable we should ever have any dealings. Others, with a very similar record of cruelty, tyranny, and aggression, are readily forgiven and are welcomed as good friends and allies.
There is also a similar tendency to wishful thinking with regard to the attitude of many of your Lordships towards our own political leaders, and especially towards the Prime Minister. I am aware that in criticising the character and
972
ability of the Prime Minister I am treading on dangerous ground. I do not wish to be unjust to any one, nor to hurt any one's feelings unnecessarily, and I would therefore ask you to look at this question from what is, perhaps, a new standpoint. None of us—and here I include myself—like to have to confess we have made fools of ourselves. It is particularly hard to do so if many innocent people have suffered as the result of our folly. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that I should be right about this war and the majority of your Lordships should be wrong. If all the people who have been killed in this war ought not to have been killed and need never have been killed, and if you by your support of the war are partly responsible for their death, that would be a very terrible thing, and a very difficult thing for which to admit responsibility. If all the people who have been maimed, blinded, and driven insane by this war ought not to have been injured and need not have been injured, and you by your support of the war are in some measure responsible, that again would be a very terrible thing to have to admit. Therefore, when any prominent man says, "This war is right," your whole emotional nature, your whole natural instinctive desire to be on good terms with yourselves and to retain the respect of your fellows, rises up in vehement but quite unreflective approval. It is much the same thing with the stories of German and Japanese atrocities, real or imaginary, which are such a very potent reason for the continuation of the war. These atrocities——
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, may I be permitted to ask a question with regard to what the noble Duke is saying? On a point of order, may I ask your Lordships whether it is not the custom of the House in some way to relate one's speech to the Motion before the House? The noble Duke's remarks do not seem to have any relation whatever to the Motion, and therefore I would ask your Lordships, especially the Leader of the House, what steps we ought to take in order to induce the noble Duke to relate his speech to the Motion before the House or to bring it forward at some other date.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, as your Lordships know, we do not in this House always strictly adhere to the terms of the Motion before

973
the House, but it is a general expectation that noble Lords who take parts in debates will try to make what they say relevant to the purposes of the debate. I think that is all I can say on this occasion, and I hope it will be remembered that, as far as possible, while desiring to give complete liberty to every speaker, we ought as a matter of courtesy and order to relate ourselves to the terms of the Motion before the House.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, may I say that I feel that what I am saying is exceedingly pertinent to the maintenance of the unity and solidarity of the Empire, because in my opinion the continuation of this war in a reckless manner is, of all things, most calculated to bring the Empire to an end, particularly if the leadership be not the kind of leadership that is required? I submit that the Prime Minister is the living embodiment of that spirit which declares that this war is right, and it is for that reason, and not because of any qualifications for leadership which entitled him to guide the nation and the Empire at this period of crisis, that you accord him your whole-hearted and quite uncritical support. If you consider his record in the last war, he was in a great measure responsible for our failures at Antwerp and in Gallipoli. He was also responsible for the foolish and disastrous expedition against our present Soviet Allies. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he was responsible for our financial policy, which reduced this country to unreasonable poverty and unemployment; and again in this war he has had a great measure of responsibility for our failures at the Skaggerak, at Narvik, and at Namsos. He undoubtedly was responsible for the exceedingly futile expedition to Greece, which in turn is the cause of most of our serious difficulties in Africa. Again he is responsible in a very great measure——
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, on a point of order, as the mover of this Motion, I think the noble Duke should at least stick to the terms of the Motion. He says nothing about the Motion at all. He is making a direct attack on the Prime Minister of the country without any regard to the Empire whatever. I am sure your Lordships have listened to a very long debate. In ordinary circumstances I would not have made this intervention, but I do feel that the noble Duke, having
974
once been asked to speak to the terms of the Motion, might at least have conformed, and allow us to get on with the debate in which we are concerned.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you would not wish to deny the noble Duke his right to criticize the Prime Minister upon a proper occasion. The extent of your Lordships' tolerance and traditions would allow that, but I have already expressed my opinion, as Deputy Leader of the House, that the noble Duke should endeavour to speak to the question before the House.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: May I say then that I feel that for a very long time past members of this House, as indeed people in the country generally, have, in a manner exceedingly dangerous to the welfare of the Empire and to the future of the Empire, acquired what I may term the mentality of a greyhound engaged in the pursuit of electric hares, which is continually starting enthusiastically after a new hare unmindful of all the other hares it has failed to capture? The technique whereby these hares are presented is becoming all too familiar to thoughtful people. A wonderful victory is announced from some theatre of war, and for a time the theme of this victory is developed with enthusiasm. Then if the victory turns out to be a defeat, or at least a very modest success, the news from that theatre of war is very judiciously damped down and a new hope of a new victory is announced from somewhere else. During the past few months we have had the Kerch hare, the Kharkov hare, the Cologne hare and the Midway Island hare, and, more recently, the North African hare. Still later men, planes and petrol have been wasted on the Bremen hare, night raids on Germany being the last resort of a strategic bankrupt.
Then I would particularly warn your Lordships, if you have any real regard for the future of the Empire, not to place undue reliance on the amount of help which you think you will get from America. The American war effort and our war effort are very closely united, and I do not think anyone in this House can dispute that the welfare, the security and the solidarity of the Empire depend on the result of that effort. There is, in the case of American help, the serious barrier of ocean distances. There are

975
the very serious shipping losses; and remember that it is not merely a question of landing an Expeditionary Force on the Continent, it is a question of keeping that Force adequately supplied. Remember also that there are very serious difficulties with regard to adequate war supplies in America, particularly, of course, with regard to the supply of rubber. And politicians who send an Expeditionary Force to the Continent—our last hope, perhaps—inadequately supplied, are guilty of something very like murder, and I would say, if I believed in capital punishment, which I do not, that they would richly deserve to be hanged. It makes no difference whether the inadequacy of the supply is due to decisions made three years ago, to shortage of materials due to the fact that the enemy commands the main sources of supply, or to the lack of shipping, the result is the same. The men are killed and the Empire suffers perhaps irretrievable disaster.
There are also the corruption and selfishness of the great American armament firms. Some little time ago a report was published dealing with this question which reveals a very serious and startling state of affairs that received very full publicity in American papers and exceedingly little in our own——
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, on a point of order. As the oldest Peer present, and as the noble Duke declines to obey the Deputy Leader of the House and be relevant to the debate which is before your Lordships, I beg to move that the noble Duke be no longer heard.
Moved, That the Duke of Bedford be no longer heard.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope, my Lords, this Motion will not be persisted in. I disagree with every sentiment the noble Duke has expressed; at the same time I have heard many speeches in your Lordships' House which were not very relevant to the subject under discussion. With a little more Parliamentary experience the noble Duke could have brought all his remarks within the scope of this Motion. I could have made the speech he has made by relating every argument to the Empire. In the interests of a very small minority of the country, and a still smaller minority in this House, for which
976
apparently the noble Duke speaks, I hope this Motion will not be persevered with. If we do go on with it, we shall be helping the cause of those who are out to make mischief and weaken the war effort of this country. We shall advertise and make much of the attitude of this very small group for whom the Duke of Bedford speaks, and, therefore, in the interests of the country, I trust that this Motion will not be proceeded with.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord who has just addressed us was not really paying particular attention to what the noble Duke was then saying. I know he is a most astute debater, but I think even Lord Strabolgi would have found it impossible to relate bad practices of armament firms in the United States of America to the question of the well-being of the British Empire. In no circumstances whatever could that be regarded as in order in the other House of Parliament, and both Houses do attempt to follow the same general rules of order. I must be permitted to say, after an experience of forty years of Parliament, that I have never heard a speech so utterly remote from the subject before the House as that to which we have been listening. I have a question to ask afterwards in which I take a lively interest, and it is a matter of some concern to me to hear the noble Duke going on and on as he has been doing. I submit with all respect that I have never heard a speech so utterly remote from the Motion before the House.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, might it not be possible for some of your Lordships who have had much experience in this House, to suggest to the noble Duke that he might put down a Motion for Papers that will enable him to discuss the conduct of the war and everything else he wishes to discuss? But, out of respect for the traditions of this House, I hope he will have regard to the general attitude of the House, which has been shown in the discussion, and accept the suggestion which has been made to him, so that there need be no recourse to such severe action as is embodied in the Motion of Lord Gainford.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the House would be reluctant to be compelled to vote the noble Duke down, especially when he is giving utterance to sentiments that are most unpalatable to members,

977
because we are anxious that this should be a very free debating assembly. But I would make an appeal to the noble Duke to bear in mind that the speech he has prepared is not really a speech on the Motion which relates to the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire. Would he not think it better and more courteous to the House to conform to your Lordships' evident general desire that he should make his speech on a more relevant occasion?
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, may I say I have no wish to oppose the House? If it is the general opinion of the House that the result of the war has no important effect on the unity and solidarity of the Empire, if that is the decision—and it seems to be the decision of most noble Lords present—I shall be very pleased to follow their wishes and speak on another occasion.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, that the Duke of Bedford be no longer heard, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, at this late hour I wish to say only a very few words in reply to the debate. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for his reply. From the terms of that reply I feel that he is fully impressed with the necessity for maintaining the solidarity and unity of the British Empire, and I think that so long as he is at the head of the Colonial Office, we can leave it to him to look after those interests. I should like also to thank particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, for their contributions to the debate. They have made very valuable suggestions. I was especially impressed by the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, that with the much quicker communications by air which we have to-day and will have after the war, it might be possible to have Imperial Conferences attended by the Prime Ministers of different parts of the Empire three or four times a year. In that way we might be able to obtain that common policy for defence and on foreign affairs which will be so vital to us after the war. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

"PLANS FOR CIVILIAN ACTION IN INVASION."
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, if they can state the reason for the long delay in issuing the pamphlet Plans for Civilian Action in Invasion, dated 8th June, 1942, and issued to both Houses of Parliament on Tuesday, 9th June. And further, whether they will take steps to ensure that the contents of this pamphlet will be made as fully known to the civilian population and the Defence Services as in the case of the two previous pamphlets Beating the Invader and If the Invader Comes, which have now become obsolete.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the statement to which the noble Lord refers was made available to the Press on June 9, that is the same day on which it was made in this House. Copies of it are being dispatched to military and civilian authorities and to all members of invasion committees. The question of further publicity will be kept under review and such steps taken as from time to time may be considered necessary.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, arising out of that reply may I be allowed to ask for a specific answer to the question whether the Government will give the same publicity to this new order as was given to the old order? In the original order we were told to be rabbits, quite definitely—rabbits, go to ground—and in the new order we are told to be lions. I think it is only fair that the people should be told of the change. May I press for an answer? Will the noble Duke give an assurance—I understood that it was the Government's intention—that the same publicity will be given to the lion document as was given to the rabbit document?
THEDUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I think very much wider publicity is actually being given to the new document,

979
for the invasion committees are new bodies and every member of those committees is being sent a copy of the new instructions which have also been issued to the Press. The fact that we have seen rather less of this new order than of the previous order may be due to the fact that invasion is not so much in mind now as it was in June or July, 1940. The Press, however, are in full possession of the document and it is now being issued to all responsible authorities throughout the country.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Duke has forgotten that the rabbit document was circulated to every citizen by house to house distribution through the Post Office. Let them be told to be lions in the same way.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I will bring that suggestion to the notice of my right honourable friend.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1942.
Draft Special Order, dated 17th July, 1942, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Sections 38 (3) and 52 (2) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1942.
Draft Special Order made by the Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction, under Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, and the Determination of Needs Act, 1941:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned.