Lords Sitting of 9 June 1942

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Kenmare (E. Kenmare)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Leicester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

RECRUITMENT OF JEWS.
LORD WEDGWOOD LORD WEDGWOOD rose to call attention to the importance of arming the Jews; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when last this matter was raised in this House the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, accused me of inciting to violence. In a sense, my whole life has been spent in inciting people to think, to see, and then to act. Every idea is an incitement, and, when urged and believed in, it is acted upon, unless other ideas are put against it, or unless lack of energy stifles the idea at birth. There is no difference between the inception of an idea and the incitement. I trust that the charge of inciting your Lordships to violence will not be taken too seriously, or as being too extraordinary; for, after all, I look round these Benches and I see the incitement to violence behind all of you. I see the House of Cecil, founded on incitement to violence upon Bosworth Field. I see the first House of Lords extorting Magna Charta from a King—inciting to violence ! I see the first House of Commons summoned in a rebellion, and maintained and sustained by successful incitements to violence throughout the ages. I only hope that we shall continue to live up to our traditions, and respond to incitements to violence.
But perhaps you will be thinking that I was inciting the Jews of Palestine to violence. No, no, my Lords. It might be a very good thing to incite them to violence; the shock is often salutary; but it is years since any word of mine has ever been reported in Palestine, and there is no chance of my incitements getting beyond the four walls of this Chamber. Indeed,
180
when this matter was before the House recently, when the official broadcast was made from Palestine to the Arabs, the speeches of Lord Davies and myself were referred to. I presume that the broadcast was "vetted" by the usual censors or officials of Palestine, and it was pointed out to the Arabs that both Lord Davies and myself were not really genuine Lords, but belonged to the lower orders and had been elevated above our station for political reasons. In those circumstances, I think it will be quite clear that no incitement to violence can come from us. As a matter of fact, Lord Davies is in the enjoyment of adequate means, and I myself, with a pleasantly resounding pedigree, can view with interest and indifference the Anti-Semitic underworld and their attempts to substantiate their position.
I should like to say in passing that it is, and I believe always has been, the custom for the Ministry of Information to give to members of the House of Commons, and I believe also to members of the House of Lords, particulars of everything Joyce or Goebbels has said about us in the German broadcasts which reflected upon us in any way. I think that that is a very good principle, and that it might be extended to the broadcasts made by the British Government as well, so that we should have a certain knowledge of what was being said, and possibly a check upon the people who said it. The difficulty there is that I do not want that censor rebuked; I consider his evidence invaluable, and I only want to know whether we sit here by permission of the Foreign Office or as Peers of the Realm.
I ask that because recently another of our servants—some official, I must suppose, of the Foreign Office—has followed suit with another impertinence. I was asked by the Zionist Agency to send a five minute talk to a New York banquet in connexion with the subject of to-day's debate. They assured me that the B.B.C. were mere transmitters, and that the censorship would apply only, as usual, to military information. For that my script was passed, and the banquet guests enlightened. Extracts from my speech appeared in the Daily Mail. Immediately, without request or apology to me, an official, whose name I wish to know, issued a communiqué to the Press to say that the B.B.C. did not approve of my speech

181
and that the censor had been punished for allowing it to go over their transmission. As a matter of fact, there were two censors, one a Protestant and the other a Catholic; I wonder which of them was punished. I also wonder whether I have a legal remedy—damages for libel. Perhaps some of our legal Lords would advise me on the subject. I make my living out of broadcasting for the B.B.C.—or I might—but they will never allow me to broadcast again. And then moral and intellectual damages. Think of the spate of anonymous letters and all the terms of abuse which I might expect to receive from the readers of the Daily Mail, directly they saw the communiqué, though as a matter of fact the letters I got were all the other way. I had twenty-nine letters: twenty-six approved of my broadcast and three did not. The three which did not of course were written by Fascists, as usual Anti-Semite Fascists, all of the same criminal type. I thought I would pass them over to the Government; they would be worth reading. The Daily Mail was wrong. Either it has got a very small circulation or its readers are not so Anti-Semite as you would expect. In fact, in spite of the newspapers and the black markets, Anti-Semitism declines as Hitler is better understood.
Fortunately, the speech I made was germane to this debate, for which indeed it was actually prepared. I propose to ask your Lordships to hear and determine between the alarmist official and myself. This is the speech I sent over the wireless to New York:
" The chief merit of Dr. Weizmann is that he seeks to restore or create the self-respect of the Jewish people. I think the creation of self-respect should be the great aim of all statesmen—everywhere. … In Palestine the Jew-is on horseback, head up, free from the care of what others may think of him. At home! I used to think that the first step towards freedom was to get the land. Give me the land and I will produce the men. In 1942, in a worse world, I must reverse the order. Give me the men, and they can take the land—only the men must be armed. In 1942, men without arms don't count, and have no rights. Presently, they have no food and live no longer. That is why Victor Cazalet and I, and that handful of God's good Englishmen who still put duty and conscience above subservience to any Government have formed a committee to concentrate effective action on the arming of the Jews. The arguments are mostly obvious. The more people there are to help us destroy Hitlerism the better, None are more pledged to try to kill. Hitler than the Jews. Not to allow them to fight for their own land
182
and their skins by our side is inhuman and treachery to all that we fight for.
" These reasons I have given are obvious. Yet why is it forbidden to arm? Let us be frank. We have nothing to conceal any longer. Our enemies know already why we want the Jews of Palestine armed—and why the British forbid it. We want the Jews of Palestine armed in the sure and certain conviction that, once armed, they will never surrender those arms, save with their lives, either to Hitler's Germans or the British Administration in Palestine. First arms, then land, then freedom ! Yoked for twenty-five years in double harness the end has come. Twenty-five years of what should have been co-operation have been twenty-five years of jealousy, malice and uncharitableness, ending in the mass massacre of the ' Struma.' The British Administration have been too strong for the British Parliament and conscience. The whole Administration, from the top to the Irish police who masquerade as British, arc against the half-million Jews of Palestine. They will never let them have arms, nor land, nor free immigration, nor a refuge, nor a home—never! They don't like Jews. And there are enough Anti-Semites and crypto-Fascists still in Great Britain to back up the Hitler policy and spirit.
" Some think it will be all right at the end of the war, that the ' Struma ' and the ' Patria ' and the shootings and concentration camps are all forced upon the British Government to prevent the Arabs making trouble just now. Wishful thinking! The Arabs are an excuse, not a reason. Any change now must involve the whole Administration. They have all a vested interest in proving the Balfour Declaration unworkable, in proving themselves right. There is no longer any hope for any British Administration. The bombs that blew up the ' Struma ' blew too deep a gulf between. It was the logical and inevitable end of a policy. Therefore seek to get your America to act, to press for freedom and justice, to accept the Mandate, to build another free land, with open doors and open hearts. I am speaking to you Stephen Wise and to you Hillel Silver. I have tried to save for my own countrymen the glory of rebuilding Jerusalem, of doing justice, of creating freedom. It is no use; they won't do it. I cannot help it. You must turn to America and must take on the job yourselves. Ask no more from Britain. You make yourselves too cheap. You weary us. We prefer King Ibn Saud and King Farouk, and veils and fezzes and the Middle Ages.
" I speak also to you Senator Wagner. You are as devoted to your people as I am to mine. You are as proud of America as I am of England's past. Will you see where lies America's duty? Can you take on the job from our enfeebled hands? The responsibilities of the whole world have lain on our shoulders long enough. It's your turn now. The mantle of Elijah has fallen upon Elisha—not only in Palestine. It is your rendezvous with destiny. And, if it should occur to you to think poorly of the way in which we have acquitted ourselves, if you see too many black pages in our history, reflect that all nations that have ruled have such black pages, but see at the same time in our history, as in America's, that

183
at least there have always been men to denounce the crimes of their own Government, to seek to right the wrong. You and I, Senator Wagner or Senator Lodge, we may not succeed but we can keep our country's name clean by daring to be in the right with two or three. Then some day even Jews will find justice and respect, perhaps even gratitude. We may all look forward to the day when there will be no leaving it to England or leaving it to America, when, joined in a Federal Union of the Free, the Jews of Palestine may be partners. Then neither isolated America nor isolated England shall be any longer afraid to do its duty."
I have stated there my honest opinions, hoping your Lordships will prove me wrong. I think the Jews of Palestine will not be allowed arms nor to form Home Guards, to defend themselves, or to kill Nazis. You can prove me wrong. You dare not admit me right. I have stated the facts as to the attitude of the Administration towards the Jews. You have made these facts. They are ugly facts—"not a pretty piece of porcelain," as Lord Brabazon said in his speech. Did he expect me to make a pretty piece of porcelain? Politics in 1942 are not so pretty, and the return of the "Struma'' to Hitler's use was not pretty. Anti-Semitism is not pretty. Does Lord Brabazon want to make your Lordships' House a pretty place where, in decent twilight, those who have escaped from responsibility may exchange pretty compliments? A stanza from Mr. Swinburne's "Proserpine":
" Here, where the world is quiet
From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be."
Pshaw, not while there is a drop of blood in our veins. Lord Brabazon is now free. He can freely state and adhere to arguments he believes to be sound. I do not think his arguments arc sound, but I am afraid your Lordships might, and therefore I shall not quote them. I can assure Lord Brabazon that the frankness and courage for which he was noted in the Commons will be equally highly appreciated in the Lords, and in any case, to come from the sublime to the homely, let me remind him that dog does not eat dog.
No, you do not want things to be pretty. You want them to be honest. Your grievance against me is not what I said, but that I said these things to America, and not here from my place in
184
Parliament. Let me explain. The barrier between us and Americans is that we do not speak of them or to them as though they were Englishmen or Scotsmen, but as though they were foreigners—not with perfect frankness, but with the language of diplomacy, as though we have to make a case, to justify our conduct and our past. If we are going to work with them—ultimately, as I hope, to unite with them—all this '' my country right or wrong stuff "simply exasperates, and I believe it is intended to do so. There are many pages in our history of which we are ashamed. So there are in America's. Decent people in Britain and America are not going to conceal them, slur them over, or defend them. What we can point to, in both countries, is that every crime of government has found men to denounce their own Government, and ultimately to convert public opinion. In that we are almost unique. It is our most glorious tradition. Chatham denouncing the war with the Thirteen Colonies; Burke denouncing the pillage of India; Wilberforce denouncing the slave trade; Ashley Cooper denouncing the factory system; Bright denouncing our support of the South in the Civil War; Mill denouncing the crimes of Governor Eyre—we owe something to these men, all Members of Parliament. We owe just what America owes to Lloyd Garrison, to Lowell, and to Lincoln, and those who in recent days defended, even with humour, as the Lord Chancellor will admit, Sacco and Vanzetti or the Scots-borough negro boys. It is these people who have made our joint united traditions.
I beg your Lordships to approve of one who has done his best to carry on those traditions. Our fame will stand higher in history because one voice was raised in Parliament to denounce and correct the Massacre of Jallianwallah Bagh, or the surrender of the Czechs at Munich, or the return of the "Struma" to Hitler's use, or the refusal of arms and safety to the Jews. The Prime Minister wrote of me:
" The distressed of the whole world have learnt to look to him, and through him to Parliament, for a patient hearing and the redress of wrongs. There have been occasions when he and I have differed, but I have never doubted his single-minded pursuit of truth and justice "
That is not merely an accolade, an answer to this Foreign Office servant; it

185
is an encouragement. Is it possible that if I did not exist you would positively have to invent me? I apologize if I am preaching. I only wish you would appoint for the work a suffragan from among the Lords Spiritual—only do not pay him lest he transfers his allegiance to the Foreign Office and the Vatican.
Why did I appeal directly to America? Because I am not playing a game, but trying to get arms for the Jews. Why did I tell the Americans the ugly truth? Because I wish to force the hands of the British Foreign Office. It is not enough for our good name to make empty protest. I want results, not the recitation of a litany. We followed up the massacre of Amritsar by the dismissal of General Dyer. We followed up the murder of the Czechs at Munich by hooting Chamberlain out of office. I hope yet to live to see those who sent the "Struma's" cargo back to the Nazis hanged as high as Haman, cheek by jowl with their prototype and Führer. Adolf Hitler. Do noble Lords think, even if it was the only way, it was wrong to tell America? Americans are with us now in the fight against Hitler. How much longer is the farce to continue of measuring out what it is wise to tell those who fight and die beside us? In the words of our Anglo-American Prime Minister, affairs between us are getting a bit mixed up, as the Mississippi, "just rolling along." May they get more mixed and more united, for we must tell each other the truth and learn to trust each other's background and principles.
When I spoke to America I did not do so with my tongue in my cheek, and I desire that the Foreign Office and the B.B.C. should also keep the tongue in its proper place. If we do not do our duty by the persecuted Jews in the world I hope that America will. I should prefer that we should make an armed, triumphant Palestine, but if the present aping of Hitler is the best we can do then let America say "Is not there a better way?" My demands are three—permission to the Palestinian Jews to raise and arm Home Guards; the raising of a definitely Jewish Force recruited from any Jews who have or can escape from Hitler; the arming and training to fight of all the Jews now ignominiously serving in the Pioneer Corps. I am told that both Lord Croft and Lord Cranborne are to reply
186
in this debate. Lord Croft was an Imperialist. I and the Jews will get as short shrift from him as did the Spanish Republic. However much we may both love our country the difference between us is profound. He would like to restore the power to dominate; I only want to restore to England the right to hold up her head. Give us a chance to restore our self-respect, to wipe out the black pages of the last twenty-four years, to establish our place in history as fighting for justice even for the despised Jews, which is refused. I beg to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I should not normally have intervened in this debate at all. For, after all, the question of the arming of the Jews in Palestine, to which the noble Lord's Motion refers, is essentially a military question and it will, as Lord Wedgwood has already said, be replied to at the end of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. But Lord Wedgwood, both in his speech to-day and in a broadcast which he made last week to America, and from which he has quoted large sections to your Lordships this afternoon, has introduced very much wider issues, and I think about these I must say something. I intend to deal mainly with the broadcast aspect, because it seems to me, if he will forgive my saying so, that was far more reprehensible owing to the fact that it was made to an audience which does not know the noble Lord as well as we do here.
The noble Lord's broadcast to America on this particular question will, I think, be regretted by all his friends. For in it he made a number of charges, entirely unjustifiable in character and unsupported by a shred of evidence, both against His Majesty's Government and against the Colonial Office and against the Palestine Administration and in fact against the country as a whole. I am responsible both for the Colonial Office and for the Palestine Administration, and I cannot allow such charges to go by default. The noble Lord in his broadcast said—he has already quoted the words, but perhaps the House will allow me to quote them again:
" The British Administration have been too strong for the British Parliament and conscience. The whole Administration, from the top to the Irish Police who masquerade as

187
British, are against the half million Jews of Palestine. They will never let them have arms, nor land, nor free immigration, nor a refuge, nor a home—never ! They do not like Jews, and there are enough Anti-Semites and Crypto-Fascists still in Great Britain to back up the Hitler policy and spirit."
That is what the noble Lord said. What is the suggestion behind it? It is somewhat difficult to find out, for, if he will forgive me saying so, anyone who reads it will find the argument rather muddled. But so far as it means anything it means that the British Parliament has approved one policy and the Palestine Administration and Colonial Office have frustrated it—and have frustrated it because—I quote again—
" there are enough Anti-Semites and Crypto-Fascists still in Great Britain to back up the Hitler policy and spirit."
Does the noble Lord really believe that nonsense—does he really believe it?
LORD WEDGWOOD: Unless you prove me wrong, and you can try to do so if you like.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Does the noble Lord really believe that the devoted civil servants of the Colonial Office and of the Palestine Administration are a sinister gang of Anti-Semite Fascists engaged in carrying out the policy of Hitler? Does he really believe that? Because, if he does harbour such fantastic ideas, I hope he will come and visit me at the Colonial Office and I will introduce him to some of the people there and he will realize how fantastic such an idea is. But not only is it fantastic; it is also wicked to make such statements. If it was merely nonsense of which the noble Lord was guilty it would not really much matter. But in the present situation it is mischievous nonsense and even dangerous nonsense.
The noble Lord was saying this afternoon in his speech that we should all be honest. Is he really himself honest in his own mind about this matter? He tells the American people that I and some of my officials are Fascists, backing up the policy of the enemy. That is the meaning of what he has said if it means anything at all. That is not true and he knows it is not true. Then he goes on to tell them that we are not carrying out the policy approved by Parliament. That also is not true. It is exactly what we are doing, carrying out the policy
188
approved by Parliament. What we are not doing is to carry out the policy approved by the noble Lord himself. If that constitutes Crypto-Fascism, all I can say is the definition would be one very astonishing to both Hitler and Mussolini, as I am sure it is to noble Lords here this afternoon.
Finally—and this is far the worst—he went on deliberately to incite the Jews at a difficult time—and this is a very difficult moment in the history of this country—to put themselves in opposition by armed force to the legally constituted authority in Palestine. I will quote his words. He said:
" We want the Jews of Palestine armed in the sure and certain conviction that once armed they will never surrender those arms save with their lives either to Hitler's Germany or to the British Administration in Palestine."
The noble Lord said this afternoon, or practically said, that it was always right to incite to violence. He took the House a slightly biased gallop over English history and showed how resort to violence always worked and always had been right. That is of course a matter of opinion on which people will take different views. But I really hardly think that anyone would argue that a civil war between Jews and Arabs would be likely to lead to a satisfactory solution of the Palestine problem. In any case, as I understand it, his main complaint against His Majesty's Government is that they have not provided the necessary arms to allow this civil war to take place. That is, he thinks, profoundly unreasonable. Apart from the fact that the premises on which the argument is based have no relation to reality, as I think my noble friend Lord Croft will show, it is surely the oddest argument ever produced in your Lordships' House in any period in its history. Nor can I believe it would appeal to the responsible leaders of Zionism.
At any rate, I understand the noble Lord has now given the English up as a bad job and has turned to the United States. He said in his broadcast, using a Biblical analogy, "The mantle of Elijah has fallen upon Elisha." That in a way is very flattering to this country. For, as the noble Lord knows, Elijah, after a long and very meritorious life, was carried up to Heaven in a chariot of fire. But I do not think anyone would suggest that that

189
great man, during the time he was on earth, ever ran away from his duty; and we do not intend to run away from our duty with regard to Palestine. The noble Lord referred to Palestine as a mantle, sometimes I feel that the Palestine problem is most like a hair shirt, not easy to wear, always uncomfortable and frequently intensely irritating. But we have worn it for a number of years, and we do not intend now to leave it to others. The noble Lord said also in his broadcast, of himself and a number of his friends—I do not know who they are—
" We can keep our country's name clean by daring to be in the right with two or three."
Many of us in this House and outside have long been admirers of the noble Lord's courage and independence. They are splendid qualities. But I do appeal to him, at this very difficult time, not to prostitute them by such reckless statements as he has made on this question. To-day we are fighting for freedom just as much as he is. We are, just as he, champions of the tortured and enslaved people of Europe. To us, as much as to him, the gratitude of Jews, throughout the world should—and no doubt will—be due when the day of victory dawns.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed very briefly to answer the noble Viscount in view of the attack made on my noble friend. The noble Viscount admonished my noble friend for what he called his incitements to violence, although my noble friend had very carefully explained that his incitements to violence were incitements to men to think for themselves, to think wisely, and to endeavour to improve their conditions. I hope he will long continue to do so.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If I may be allowed, I will read another extract from the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood's, broadcast. He said:
" Give me the men and they can take the land—only the men must be armed."
Was that merely an incitement to think wisely and so on?
LORD STRABOLGI: I was referring to my noble friend's explanation at the beginning of his speech, which I believe Lord Cranborne missed in part The noble Viscount says that if this demand is met to allow the Jews to have their own Home Guard battalions, for example, for
190
the defence of their homes, their lives and their honour, that would lead to civil war between the Jews and the Arabs. That, my Lords, might be taken as a direct incitement to the Arabs to engage in civil war against the Jews, for it is the Arabs who have arms to-day, smuggled in over the frontier, as the noble Viscount knows, and the Jews, who have arms in sealed boxes which they are not allowed to use, nor can they open the boxes without the leave of a superior officer. That is an incitement to violence by the Arabs.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I said the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood's argument was that he wanted these arms given to the Jews to enable them to take land and his complaint against the Government was that they were not providing the arms for that purpose. I was not going into the Government case. I was only stating the case which the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, put to us. As far as illegal arms are concerned, as the noble Lord knows well, there are masses of illegal arms on both sides at the present time.
LORD STRABOLGI: When the noble Viscount talks of civil war, surely he remembers that we have a great force of troops in Palestine. Surely that argument is absurd and dangerous, which is worse. Unless there is some further explanation from the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for War, when he replies, that argument by the noble Viscount will appear to the anti-British leaders amongst the Arabs as an incitement to them to attack the Jews.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I cannot allow the noble Lord to get away with that. This is what Lord Wedgwood said:
" Give me the men and they can take the land—only the men must be armed."
What does that mean except that they are to take the land from the Arabs? I am only warning the House that, if such a policy were carried out, it would lead to civil war and must lead to civil war. To suggest that armed forces of Jews should take land from the Arabs and not provoke civil war seems perfectly fantastic.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is not the policy asked for by my noble friend or any one else. What we are asking is that the Jews should have a chance to fight for their lives against Nazi murderers who may come into the country. My

191
noble friend does not accuse Viscount Cranborne of supporting Hitler's policy; there is no decent man of any nation who can do that.
Hitler's policy is one of extermination; ours is one of toleration. If you do not allow the Jews to fight for their country you cause great discouragement. The Arabs have the right to enlist in the British Forces but so far the greater number of those who have come forward in Palestine have been Jews. In proportion to population Jews have come forward far more freely, although many of them must remain to carry on agriculture. But they ought to be allowed to have arms as the Home Guards have in this country, and for the same reason to deal with parachutists or with invaders in case of emergency. This is a serious demand put forward to deal with the actual situation.
Just to give some idea of the strength of this movement in America—and my noble friend Lord Wedgwood was addressing himself to America and not to a British audience—1 would say that there is a very powerful body in America, the American Committee for a Jewish Army, and I would read out the names of a few of the people who support it. The object is to raise an Army of 200,000 Jews to fight on our side, 100,000 from the Middle East and the remainder from other parts of the world. That is apart from normal recruitment for the British or American Armies. I should have thought 200,000 men prepared to fight with courage and even fanaticism would be welcome. Who supports this Committee? Who are these two or three, who are the few fanatics, composing a little minority of people who must not be taken seriously? Let me read out to your Lordships some of the names of these people. There is Mr. William Green, President of the American Federation of Labour, General McGlachlin, General Haynes, a number of senators, including Senator Johnson, Senator Davis, Senator Gillette, Senator Murray, all very active politicians, Colonel Patterson, who commanded the Jewish Legion in the last war, General Hershey, National Director of Selective Service, Colonel Stimson, the American Secretary of War, Colonel Knox, Secretary of the Navy, and Mrs. Roosevelt. These are a few of the people in America who support this movement. These are
192
the two or three fanatics, these are the people who are not realists. I do warn my noble friend the Leader of the House that he must not under-estimate the strength of this movement in America and must give due consideration to it before this suggestion is turned down once more. This movement has spread right across America. It has become a kind of test of our sincerity—and I say this most deliberately—the support which we are prepared to give the Jews by allowing them to serve under arms. Are we going to allow the Jews to form their own legions, as they did in the last war, under their own flag and under their own badges, and fight together as comrades on our side?
This brings me to the purely military question. I will if I may put this suggestion to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War, Lord Croft. So far, some 12,000 Jewish volunteers have enlisted in the various Services of the Army and the R.A.F. in the Middle East. About 15,000 to 20,000, I am advised by the Jewish authorities, responsible people in the Jewish agency, would probably come forward if the conditions they describe were altered. It will be said that recruitment is dying away, that the numbers of recruits forthcoming are not so great as it was before, that Jews can enter the Pioneer Corps and so on. Well, these are the reasons why more recruits are not immediately forthcoming. I know that this will interest the Under-Secretary of State for War, as he is anxious to get good fighting men. At present the Jewish volunteers serving are dispersed among the Buffs, the R.A.S.C., the R.A.O.C., the R.E. and the R.S.C., but they have no units of their own with Jewish names or any special flags or badges. The suggestion put forward is that the dispersed companies be properly organized into Jewish battalions. It was done in the last war; why not now? Then it is suggested that another 10,000 men be enlisted immediately and together with the 6,000 Jewish supernumerary police now on active service be trained and equipped for war; the whole to be formed into a Jewish fighting force to serve with the British Army in the Middle East. These are suggestions for the local Jews in Palestine. They are quite apart from the proposals of the American Committee to which I have referred, proposals for the raising of a Jewish Army in various parts of the world

193
as well as in Palestine which would, I hope, be equally acceptable.
Dependants' allowances are very unsatisfactory. Complaints about finance and other arrangements are as follows. Separation allowances for Palestinian soldiers are still below British rates, though Jewish standards of life in Palestine are certainly not below British and price levels in Palestine are about the same as in this country. I think that that is an injustice. If they are serving in our uniform and in our Forces, why should not they have the same separation allowances as our soldiers? Special allowances and pensions are not granted. Many of these Palestinian recruits are youngish men who escaped to Palestine with great difficulty and managed also with great difficulty to bring their aged parents out of the hell of Germany. It is unfair that they should not be allowed allowances for their aged and infirm parents. I hope that the noble Lord will look into this matter, and see if something cannot be done to remedy the grievance. My advice is that this is really a matter of great consequence and that if something is done to put it right this will be a great advance to the good. With regard to the Home Guard I have information that there are some 40,000 to 50,000 Jews engaged in agriculture or other vital services in Palestine who cannot be spared for the Regular Army but who could be used for the Home Guard. That is a very large force. They will be men who, if enlisted and called on to fight, will literally be fighting for their very lives, for their families and for everything else that matters to them. Upon this I do trust that we may have a more sympathetic reply from the War Office.
May I turn now to the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood, for which he was admonished by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House? My noble friend Lord Wedgwood attacked the Colonial Administration and he was taken to task for saying that it was too strong for Parliament. My Lords, in the case of Palestine, the bureacracy, as I choose to call it, has been too strong for Parliament. I have followed this matter very closely since 1919, and I say that again and again Parliament and responsible Ministers have found the bureaucracy too strong for them. I have only to quote the sad case of my noble friend the late Lord Passfield, Colonial Minister in a
194
Labour Government. He produced one of the worst schemes for by-passing the Balfour policy.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I really cannot accept responsibility for what is done by Labour Governments. But I do say that both the Colonial Office and the Colonial Administration are carrying out the policy approved and passed through Parliament.
LORD STRABOLGI: Passed through Parliament because the Government of the day put on the Whips, and because there were only a few members who were interested or who were knowledgeable about local conditions. For these reasons the bureaucracy managed to succeed in pushing through this policy which was against the Balfour Declaration, on which we fought the last part of the last war and got a great deal of support in consequence. The principle of the matter is this, and I speak with some knowledge, for I have been to Palestine three times since the last war, I was there before that war and I have kept as closely in touch with this matter as I can. I am proud to have many Jewish friends in whose good faith and in whose reputation I have every confidence. The difficulty is this. Most of your senior officials had their early train-ing in the Crown Colonies, in the Sudan, in West Africa or East Africa, where they dealt with very docile, easily-ruled and easily-led populations. Now the Jews have many qualities, but they are difficult people to handle. They are very argumentative, they ask questions and they have to be convinced that rules, ordinances or pronunciamentos can be justified and are right. Therefore, they try the patience of these officials who have had a much easier task in their younger days when their minds were being formed. They cannot deal with Jews arguing, questioning and raising difficulties, especially when those Jews are of the rather fanatical and vigorous type who have managed to get to Palestine—the pioneering type. People of that sort are not docile. Real pioneers seldom are. The result is that in dealing with them there is need for people who have had experience of the type.
Now in some quarters in the Colonial Service there is quite a tinge of Anti-Semitism. Officials in many cases have become definitely pro-Arab, and there is a coolness towards the Jews even in the

195
Colonial Office itself. The Arabs it is said are such good horsemen, so romantic, such good fighters, and so loyal. They do not want to introduce modern methods and modern machinery; they do not want modern education; they do not question orders and pronunciamentos, because they have had too many years under the Turkish heel to venture to argue and criticize. Anti-Semitic tinge, therefore, becomes only too apparent amongst the bureaucracy in Palestine. I have not said this before. I have taken part in many debates on Palestinian questions and on Zionism in both Houses of Parliament, and I have never before mentioned this fact; but I do it now because of the attack made upon my noble friend, and because I think that he was speaking the exact truth. These people, perhaps against their own will, become Anti-Semitic because of their dealings in Palestine with the Jewish settlers. I dare say that that applies to some of the Army officers as well, and I say that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, and I invite him to deny it.
What is the remedy? The remedy is to send much younger men out there, and men with a better training and a better mental outlook, to deal with an admittedly most difficult problem. I hope that my noble friend Lord Wedgwood will stick to his guns on this question. I hope that he will be ready to broadcast again, and that if necessary he will go to America and say there some of the things which he has said here. I am proud to be associated with him on this question, and I support him through thick and thin.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, resolves itself into the excuse that Lord Wedgwood did not mean what he said. Anybody who heard the broadcast which Lord Wedgwood read out must attach the ordinary meaning to the language, and interpret it as a direct incitement to the Jews of Palestine to seize political domination and the land from the present inhabitants. I am always amazed at the attitude of Lord Wedgwood. He boasts of his patriotism and he parades his love of England, and I cannot see how he can reconcile himself to the role of abusing and libelling his own country and his own countrymen. The noble Lord is a peculiar type of Englishman who is at once the
196
delight of our enemies and the despair of his friends.
What has happened on this question? The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had a Motion down for discussion in this House on the necessity of arming the Jews of Palestine; but as soon as the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, made his broadcast, Lord Melchett withdrew it. The Government have already explained what has been done to arm the Jews for the legitimate purpose of self-defence, and we shall no doubt hear from the noble Lord, Lord Croft, to-day how that process has continued in the last few weeks; but is it not clear that Lord Melchett and the responsible leaders of the Jews in this country generally seek to be saved from Lord Wedgwood in his attempt to make political capital out of the natural desire of the Jews to do their utmost to defend the cause of freedom against Nazi tyranny?
The noble Lord who defended Lord Wedgwood tried to twist Lord Cranborne's criticism of an incitement to violence in Palestine into a suggestion that the Government were opposed to the very influential movement in America for the organization of a great force of Jews to fight for freedom. The two subjects have really no connexion. There has been not a word of opposition voiced to this proposal from America. I want to come back, however, to Lord Wedgwood's incitement to Zionists to seize the land of Palestine. In considering this treasonable appeal to the Jews to levy war on their own legal Government it is, of course, reasonable to consider whether the Jews have, as the noble Lord suggested, any well-founded complaint against the administration of the Palestine Mandate. The Zionist claim has raised two burning issues: firstly, the demand for large-scale immigration into an already overcrowded country, and, secondly, racial domination by these newcomers over the original inhabitants.
In 1922, when the present Prime Minister was Colonial Secretary, he issued a statement on British policy in Palestine which is very much to the point in regard to the Jewish claim to political domination and the swamping of the Arab population by immigration to-day. Mr. Churchill stated that His Majesty's Government had not at any time contemplated the subordination of the Arabic population, language

197
or culture in Palestine. Attention was further drawn to the fact that the terms of the Balfour Declaration do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine. It was also laid down that immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. "It is essential," the statement went on, "to ensure that the immigration should not be a burden on the people of Palestine as a whole." It was stated that up to that time immigration had fulfilled these conditions, the number of immigrants since the British occupation having been about 25,000.
Your Lordships should bear in mind that figure of 25,000 immigrants, which Mr. Churchill considered reasonable for the four years after the end of the last war, and compare that with the demand, backed by the noble Lord, for bringing in 3,000,000 Jews immediately after this war to swamp the population of Palestine. The inhabitants of that small country—about the size of Wales, but much less fertile—are already threatened with conditions of grave congestion. At the present rate of increase, the Arab population will double within twenty-seven years. All the fertile soil is not only occupied but very closely cultivated. At the end of the last war, the Jewish community numbered 80,000. It now numbers about 450,000; and yet the Zionist Organization have indignantly refused the terms of the White Paper, under which further immigration should be allowed up to another 75,000 in five years. They have also rejected the proposal 1o co-operate in a Joint Government by taking over responsibility for certain departments in proportion to the respective populations, as they claim not merely equal citizenship but political ascendency.
There is certainly no basis for these demands under the Mandate. There is no question of this country having broken faith. The Mandate obliges the Mandatory to ensure that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced. Over and over again Commissions and White Papers have expressed the opinion that neither the Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration intended Palestine to be converted into a Jewish State against
198
the will of the Arab population. The tragedy of the Palestinian question is, as was said by the Royal Commission, that it is a conflict between two rights. When Jerusalem was destroyed and its site ploughed up in the year 135 A.D., the Jews had occupied the country for about 1,300 years. Since the Mahomedan invasion of 632 the Arabs have occupied Palestine for practically the same period. To these Arabs the Jews are not only alien in culture but also in blood. It is very often loosely said that Jews are Semites, but anthropologists tell us that, pure as they have kept their culture, the Jewish race has been much mixed with Gentiles since the beginning of the Diaspora. During the Babylonian captivity they acquired a strong Hittite admixture, and it is obvious that the Armenoid features which are still found among the Sephardim have been bred out of the Ashkenazim by an admixture of Slav blood.
The Zionist movement has its main spring among those Jews of Poland and Eastern Europe. Their leaders demand that an already overcrowded Palestine should be trebled in its population by the admixture of another three million Jews immediately after the war. Now it is not a matter of putting a quart into a pint pot, it is a matter of putting exactly three pints into a pint pot. Successive inquiries have shown that immigration on this scale would be a disastrous mistake, and is indeed an impracticable dream. A far smaller measure of immigration led to the Palestine disturbances which lasted from 1936 to 1939, and showed that the Arabs, who have lived and buried their dead for fifty generations in Palestine, will not willingly surrender their land and self-government to the Jews. We may deplore it, but there is the stark naked fact, and you cannot get away from it by sentimental appeals to the hardship on the Jews. This country is responsible for law and order in Palestine, and we cannot possibly wash our hands of the country and let Jews and Arabs wage a civil war, as suggested by Lord Wedgwood.
But Lord Wedgwood's effort has a far greater power of mischief in being addressed to America. It must surely have a deplorable effect upon our Allies to be told by an ex-Cabinet Minister that the Palestine Administration do not like Jews, and that there are enough Anti-Semites

199
in Great Britain to back up the Hitler policy and spirit. This suggestion is a complete reversal of the truth. If a comparison is to be made with the Nazis it is surely those who wish to force an imported régime upon the Arab population who are guilty of the spirit of aggression and domination. Lord Wedgwood's proposal that Arabs should be subjugated by force to a Jewish régime is inconsistent with the Atlantic Charter, and that ought to be told to America. The second principle of that Charter lays down that the United States and ourselves desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; and the third principle lays down that they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live.
Surely it is time for the Zionists to abandon this appeal to force, and to seek a settlement with the Arabs by consent. The Zionist leaders expect about 7,000,000 Jews to be surviving in Eastern Europe at the end of the war, and they reject the policy of re-establishing Jewish communities under civilized conditions in Europe. They apparently expect the loss of half this number if the other half can get control of Palestine. The war will end with the heavy problem of trying to resettle these most pitiable victims of Nazi abominations. Millions of people cannot be left indefinitely the objects of charity in refugee camps. A merciful settlement must be a quick settlement. We ought, therefore, to look at once in all directions to find means to re-establish these martyrs to Nazi oppression in a new life. The Zionists look only to Palestine. On May 25, at the annual dinner of the Anglo-American Palestine Committee, Dr. Weizmann again declared that Palestine alone could absorb and provide for the homeless and Stateless Jews uprooted by the war. It is to canalize all the sympathy of the world for the martyrdom of the Jews that the Zionists reject all schemes to re-settle these victims elsewhere—in Germany, or Poland, or in sparsely populated regions such as Madagascar.
But even in their wish to occupy the pre-Christian home of the Jewish race, the Zionists are far too narrow in their outlook. Palestine itself is but a small fraction of the ancient land of Syria. I do not believe that the problem of overcrowding applies to Syria and the Lebanon and
200
Transjordan as it does to Palestine. It would be physically possible for those States, if they were willing, to absorb large numbers of Jews to mutual advantage, and without any threat to their own political independence. If the fear of Jewish domination could be removed they might indeed be glad to welcome the Jewish immigrants, with their well-known industry and intelligence and with their capital. So far as I know, no effort has been made to explore these possibilities, and we ought surely, without waiting for the peace, to see how far the regions to the north of Palestine can offer asylum for the Jewish immigration, within the old limits of historic Syria. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the possibility of negotiations with the neighbouring States of the Levant to take part in re-settling the Jews. It is obvious that the fear of political domination by immigrant Jews will be decreased if they can be spread over a wider area and shared among different Administrations. A Federation of the Northern Arab States might well assist such a solution, but federation may be long in coming, and we ought at once to discuss with the Governments concerned to what extent and under what conditions they could admit Jewish immigration without swamping their own nationalities and independence.
I trust that the revelations in Lord Wedgwood's broadcast will have finished once and for all with the idea of arming the Jews in such a way as would encourage the attempt to seize the land of Palestine. This is quite a different matter from legitimate arming in their own defence, and I think it is hardly necessary for the Government to assure the Arabs that they would not be a party to such an assault upon their rights as has been suggested. But I hope there will be no mistake in America that Lord Wedgwood is speaking only for himself in the suggestion that we ought to give up the Palestine Mandate to the United States, in the hope and expectation that she would repudiate our binding obligations. It seems to me the broadcast of Lord Wedgwood is most of all deplorable because the salvation of civilization depends primarily upon a good understanding between us and the United States. All through his broadcast runs the suggestion that we are not only unjust but feeble and incompetent. I can imagine no greater disservice than to have planted such suspicions

201
in the minds of millions of American listeners. How are we to plan the peace if British spokesmen are to sow distrust and contempt in the minds of our Allies?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but owing to the course that the debate has taken my colleagues have asked me to say a few words that will explain their position and the position of the second largest Party in the State which they represent. The issue that has been discussed to-day is one of very great public importance, and no doubt it will be widely reported in the Press of this country and probably also in the Press of the United States. We are always glad to hear the opinions of our colleagues freely expressed on any subject because that is one of the most essential traditions of your Lordships' House. At the same time it ought to be made perfectly clear that the Labour Party in no manner or degree support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, in his broadcast or in the remarks which he addressed to your Lordships this afternoon. The Labour Party cannot support any policy which would lead to the probability, as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, of a civil war in any part of our Colonial Empire at a most critical moment in the struggle in which we are engaged.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, it will not be expected that I should follow along the very interesting lines developed in some of the speeches, especially from the point of view of the future settlement and administration of Palestine. The question which has been addressed to the Government by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood deals specifically with the arming of the Jews in Palestine. I shall shortly give him an answer on that point. I must, however, express my very sincere regret that in advancing his case he has used arguments which appear to me to be so harmful in their application to the very cause he has so much at heart. They are arguments which have caused a great deal of distress among all of us who desire, above even/thing else, to see that there should be not one shred of misunderstanding between the great Democracy across the Atlantic and ourselves, and
202
also arguments which must have caused distress to those who are really working for Jewish rights in Palestine because, from all I imagine in reading the noble Lord's broadcast and hearing his speech to-day, they must be saying, "Heaven save us from our friends." I am going to deal with the specific question, which refers to the organization of the Jews in Palestine in order to take part in the war. There was one point to which the noble Lord referred at the end of his speech on which I was not quite clear. He mentioned the case of the Pioneers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: I was thinking of the Pioneers here, but also of the Pioneers there.
LORD CROFT: I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is what was not clear. Very early in the war a considerable number of those unfortunate people who are nationals of enemy countries, and found themselves fleeing to the safety of this country, were very desirous of wearing uniform in the fight against the savage and evil men who are in temporary control of their Fatherlands. From a very early date we showed our readiness, and indeed keenness, to include all such within His Majesty's Forces—all who supported our cause, when that was proved beyond doubt, and who were physically fit to come within the machinery of the Army. They have been, and are in increasing measure, doing most valuable work in the Corps which is known as the Pioneers and which, for some extraordinary reason, the noble Lord appears to think is not worthy of an equal place alongside other regiments. When specially qualified they are transferred to other arms and fulfil vital roles in the general Army machine. I assure my noble friend that we have always considered what is the wisest and best policy. It must be remembered that we had to treat all these cases from the very start as nationals of enemy origin and not as Jews. It was not, as the noble Lord realizes, a Jewish question at all. He knows very well that every Jewish national in this country has the same rights and privileges, the same duties and responsibilities, and enters the Army on exactly the same terms as other citizens. He knows that there is no discrimination.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Surely if their parents were not British subjects, they have not got the same rights?
LORD CROFT: That has nothing to do with the fact that they are Jews. That applies to all citizens of enemy origin.
LORD WEDGWOOD: I am referring to cases where their fathers were born abroad—they have not got equal rights.
LORD CROFT: In the particular point the noble Lord is raising, he is referring to the case of all those who are of enemy origin and whose parents may be in this country. He knows that every single case can be examined on its merits, and steps are taken, wherever possible, to assimilate these unfortunate people in our war effort. I do not think your Lordships would want me to deal at any length with the various types of such nationals coming to this country. I can only assure the noble Lord that there is no prejudice whatever. If anybody suggests there has been any Anti-Semitic feeling in the Army, such as he did, and as the noble Lord behind him did——
LORD STRABOLGI: I referred to some of the high military commanders in Palestine, not here.
LORD CROFT: Your Lordships will agree that it is deplorable to suggest such a thing in this country. It is the one country in the whole world which can, I think, look mankind in the face in regard to this matter, for we have opened our arms to them. I am not going to say anything further upon that except that we have wanted to give them all the consideration that we give to our own citizens. I want to come to the question of recruiting in Palestine. Recruiting of Palestinians was started at the very beginning of the war, and we brought them into arms other than infantry and Royal Artillery to complete establishment of units stationed in Palestine, and in addition to raise Palestinian Auxiliary Military Pioneer Companies. Experience proved that dilution was not a success, and those enlisted have been transferred into fully Palestinian units. We endeavoured to work at a Jewish and Arab co-operation in units, but since the middle of 1940 we have largely formed different units of Jews and Arabs, although we strictly keep to the term Palestinian. In addition to enlisting those with full Palestinian citizenship, which can be obtained after two years' residence in that country, we do now enlist refugees—that is, those who still retain their
204
original nationality, and among the Jews enlisted there is a very high proportion of Germans.
In a debate on May 20 Lord Wedgwood said in this House:
" Jews … are only allowed in Pioneer companies—a degrading form of service for people who wish to risk their lives."
Further on he said:
"… but they are not allowed to have arms. Those who get arms are put in gaol."
These really are outstanding misstatements. We have already formed Palestinian units of the following types: Infantry companies (of which there are sixteen all fully armed fighting soldiers), Pioneer companies (all in the process of being armed)——
LORD WEDGWOOD: Are they trained?
LORD CROFT: Yes, the Pioneers are highly trained.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Are they trained to use Tommy guns and fight?
LORD CROFT: They are all being armed and trained to fight as the weapons become available. In addition to those I have already named we have formed Light Anti-Aircraft batteries, Artizan Works Companies R.E., Port Operating Companies R.E., General Transport Companies R.A.S.C., Docks Stores Section R.E., Electrical and Mechanical Section R.E. Those are the facts. These Forces are open to all who desire to fight Hitler, but none of them, I must say, are yet completely full. We would welcome any recruits who wish to come forward. Originally we provided British officers and non-commissioned officers down to sergeants inclusive, but the present policy is to replace the British officers by Palestinians as and when suitable trained personnel becomes available. This process of replacement has already begun. These companies are used for aerodrome protection—a very vital task, as your Lordships have frequently reminded us—and other static defence duties, exceptions being the original Pioneer Company about 600 strong which went to France, and when Pioneers were much needed in Cyrenaica units were used there. Another unit was used in Greece and it suffered severe casualties. It was armed up to 25 per cent. of its personnel, as was the case with all the Pioneer units in the

205
whole of the British Army; at that time, owing to the shortage of rifles, they could not be more fully armed. We are now in process of arming all Pioneer companies 100 per cent., instead of 25 per cent., as heretofore.
LORD WEDGWOOD: In this country too?
LORD CROFT: Yes, everywhere. The units arc enlisted for the defence of Palestine, and as a general policy we deprecate their being used outside. With regard to future policy, owing to the great expansion of mechanical transport in the Middle East and shortage of drivers from the United Kingdom, we are speeding up our recruitment of Palestinian drivers. We have enlisted 1,000 who had civil driving knowledge, and we are now proceeding to train drivers and aim at enlisting 400 a month, but recruiting figures so far have fallen considerably short of this number. With regard to the suggestion of raising separate Jewish formations, even before Dunkirk there was no equipment available for any but existing formations, which were fully trained, and after Dunkirk the position was for a long time very much more serious.
Of course our production of equipment has since improved immeasurably, but if our supplies have increased so also have the demands upon them. Not only have India, the Dominions and our Allies been training and equipping an ever-growing number of troops, but with the extension of the war into the Far East demands for the completion of their equipment have increased greatly in urgency. At this stage in the war we should not be justified in diverting supplies of arms from bodies of troops all over the world that are already formed, and in large part trained, and only waiting to be equipped before taking the field against the enemy. If we were now to start forming and training independent Palestinian formations we could find weapons for them only at the expense of other already existing formations. The suggestion has also been made—I think it was mentioned again to-day—that Palestinian recruits should be brought from the United States of America; but I think your Lordships will agree that in view of our shipping difficulties, which have been so greatly aggravated by the war in the Far East, it would be uneconomic to take untrained men from the United States to Palestine
206
even if that policy were considered wholly advantageous at the present moment.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Lord mind making it clear about the arms difficulties? I appreciate that there is a difficulty there, but if you take the Jewish soldiers from existing units and put them into a separate unit you do not increase the demand on the arms. You move men from a number of scattered units into one central unit. That is what was meant.
LORD CROFT: I quite agree that if you take men from one battalion under a certain name and transfer them to another similar organization it does not alter the arms position, but that is not the point with which I was dealing. The point with which I was dealing is that we have the greatest difficulty in providing all the arms and equipment we require. The position now is very much better in Palestine, but if you talk about big formations where you want large subsidiary armaments it is quite a different matter. But there is still a shortage. The point I want to put is that this Force—I never quite understand why they are belittled in the way they are—is really quite substantial even in numbers, and is doing very effective work in Palestine at the present time.
The noble Lord has also complained of the absence of the Home Guard in Palestine. I want to assure him that here we really are greatly comforted by the existence of the Jewish Settlement Police, the Special Constabulary and Temporary Additional Police who, no one doubts who knows anything about their training, their character and record, would fight to the death in defence of their homes and families. These police fulfil a very similar function to the Home Guard in this country. There are over 16,000 of them in the Jewish Special Police and that is as high a proportion of the Jewish population as the Home Guard is compared to the population of this country. That is very remarkable and shows that it is a very substantial contribution.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Are they all armed?
LORD CROFT: I am glad to say that all the Settlement police are now armed and the other police are being trained from time to time as the number of instructors is increased and arms become available. The idea is that they should

207
be used in very much the same capacity as the Home Guard in this country.
There is one other thing I should like to say before I sit down, arising out of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. There seems to be an idea that there is a very great field for recruitment in Palestine. We must not exaggerate that. The present Palestinian Force is quite considerable. I do not want to give exact numbers, but the figures I have given your Lordships show that Palestine is making a very substantial contribution. I do not know how many males there are between eighteen and fifty years of age in Palestine, but the contribution is very substantial when you take into account the very large proportion of the population engaged in vital agricultural work, in essential work at ports and docks and in military works throughout the country. Any attempt to bring in more men would have no great results. You could probably only do it by conscription. It must be realized that there are not a great many people still available who are not already doing essential work.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I be allowed to interrupt for a moment? The noble Lord's use of the word "conscription" might be misunderstood. I take it that he did not mean to imply that conscription is contemplated by the Government. It is specifically prohibited by the terms of the Mandate.
LORD CROFT: I am well aware that that is so. I only intended to point out that even if you had powers of conscription it is doubtful whether you would get any large numbers in addition to those in the Forces I have enumerated and in the police forces. I think I have said enough to show that it is not the fact that we are preventing Jews in Palestine from joining the Forces. If they really want to fight Hitler, I say let them come along, because we have still vacancies. It is not correct to say that we are not arming them or that we are putting them in gaol if they have arms, because most of the units I have enumerated are either armed or in process of being armed. My belief is that this force is going to be very effective. I am proud to be co-operating with it, and I feel that it is an ill-service to the cause of our country and Palestine to suggest that we are not ready to co-operate.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words before withdrawing my Motion and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Croft, and Lord Moyne, and indeed the Leader of the House. They are on the opposite side to me—they always have been and probably always will be—but in this country we still preserve the right to reason and still allow both sides to be heard even in the hearing of America. Perhaps it may have a good effect in that country to know that in your Lordships' House we still preserve the right to tell the truth and to listen peaceably to arguments. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has been Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who is not here, Viscount Swinton and others who have been Secretaries for the Colonies, have always carried on the same policy. They are responsible for the facts I have given. They may not like them being given to America, but that does not affect the truth. I have learnt a certain amount from the noble Lord who has just spoken. Evidently there is a beginning in connexion with the Home Guard. I presume that none of these people are paid, that their service is voluntary just as in the case of the Home Guard here with possible payment for expenses. Perhaps that is a matter for the Colonial Office and not the War Office.
LORD CROFT: I will inquire into the matter and let my noble friend know.
LORD WEDGWOOD: I shall be glad of the information. With regard to women, I understand that they have been recruited into the A.T.S. and are doing useful work. I mentioned that because here, while Jewish women are allowed in the A.T.S., they are not allowed in the W.A.A.F. or the W.R.N.S.
A NOBLE LORD: Aliens.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Jewish aliens are admitted into the A.T.S. but not the Home Guard here.
LORD CROFT: Women are still excluded from the Home Guard.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Yes, women are excluded but alien male Jews are also excluded from the Home Guard, although they are allowed to take part in the other voluntary services. The noble Lord will remember that the Prime Minister talked

209
about defending London street by street. The defence of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is equally dear to the Jewish people as the defence of London is to the people of this country. I should like to know whether under the system we have been told about they arc in a position to take part in defending these towns. Such defence of towns is more obstructive to the invader than any other form of defence.
So far as this country is concerned, Jewish Pioneer Corps are not trained to use arms at present. I should like to know whether when they get arms they will, receive military training. If you arc going to say that the Pioneer Corps shall be used solely for making roads or demolition and work of that sort, it comes perilously near to Hitler's forced labour, the forced employment of French prisoners and others. It is obvious that these people who are spoiling to risk their lives ought to have just as good a chance to serve and ought to be trained to fight in the same way as any ordinary regiment. They should have the right to change from a Pioneer Corps to a regular regiment so that they may take a more active part. These people' have more reason to fight Hitler than anyone else. I do not think that we ought to continue the, exclusive privilege of the British to die in defence of liberty. I think that the more we allow the Jews or the coloured races to take part side by side with us, face the same risks and survive the same dangers, the more we shall create that brotherhood and commonwealth which will provide our only chance of securing a successful and enduring peace.
Before I sit down there is one other point which I would like to make clear. Lord Croft disagreed as to the vital interests that the Jews of the world have in getting a Jewish unit of their own. I see better why the Jews want such a Force. Other peoples have their own Free Forces. There is the Free French movement, the Free Danish movement, the Czech Army, the Poles and the Greeks. The Jews want in like manner their own units fighting in this war with us. A time will come when a peace conference will be held, at Washington presumably; then those who fought will have a voice, will be allowed a place at the table, and will ultimately secure their freedom. If it had not been for the formation of all those free and independent Forces, there would not have been such
210
a demand for the Jewish Force as there is universally to-day. It is because of these other Forces and because of their feeling of helplessness that they are saying: For God's sake give us our own Army, if only a few regiments or a brigade. Let us wear the badge of David on our shoulders and have some outward and visible sign that the Jews as a nation are interested in this war." I think that they will continue to make that demand. We might remember that in the last war there were three regiments (or was it a brigade?) purely Jewish, and they wore the shield of David on their shoulder. They fought in Palestine for their own land, and what they had in the last war they might surely, have in this war also.
Those arc the three things which I wished to get from the noble Lord, Lord Croft, as a result of this debate. I want information as to the formation of Home Guard units at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem so that those places will be resolutely defended whatever happens. I want to see that the Jewish Pioneers in this country are receiving their due quota of rifles and military training. I want to see that there is a Jewish Army, however small, on parallel lines to those of the other free countries that are fighting jointly with us for freedom. May I say in conclusion that I have not the slightest objection to the hard words that noble Lords opposite or the noble Lord beside me said about me? They have got to do it here. It is part of their unpleasant job in this life.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: No, no.
LORD WEDGWOOD: They have got their horrid pasts to defend, and I, am the natural rock upon which they fall. I know that they will go on doing their best to win the war. I too shall go on doing my best to win the war. Our ways do not always agree, but let us hope that they will eventually meet with united success. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MOTOR VEHICLES: SPEED AND ECONOMY.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the great economy in the use

211
of motor vehicles as regards tyres, petrol and oil and maintenance generally resulting from comparatively low speeds, they propose to take steps during the present emergency to prevent high speeds in the driving of any motor vehicles: and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion in my name was down for discussion before your Lordships some little time ago, and was adjourned to meet the convenience of the Minister of War Transport. It has come on to-day but, unfortunately, the Minister of War Transport has been called away on Government business of an urgent character, and he is, therefore, unable to reply to what I am about to put before your Lordships. He has, however, arranged for the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, to fill his place, and I wish to say that I have no complaint at all against the Minister of War Transport for his unavoidable absence.
The matter with which my Motion is concerned, relates to the economical use of mainly three substances, which after two and three-quarter years of war have become substances of considerable rarity in this country—namely, petrol and oil for use in various machines, rubber for use in tyres, and such substances as steel and other like things which are utilized in the upkeep and repair of vehicles. There may be other substances about which the Government may be in some trouble, but these are three of the very important substances, and all of them are consumed in the ordinary use of cars whether they be private cars or Government vehicles. Now upon the fact of the great economy which can be obtained from the use of these vehicles at a moderate speed I have no doubt at all that it will be found from the Minister's reply that there has been a great deal of ignorance. Until quite recently, I believe, people have not realized what a considerable increase in the amount of fuel consumed and in the wear and tear of tyres is caused by the use of vehicles at a rapid rate on the roads. The Government some time ago, after, I believe, a considerable amount of inquiry, placed upon the coupon books which are issued to people in connexion with the use of petrol, a statement to the effect that the amount of distance which you travel for a particular gallon of petrol is largely dependent on your using the
212
car at a speed between 28 and 30 miles per hour.
I am not sure when they first put that in print for the benefit of the public, because, like a great many other people, I am afraid that I do not read everything that comes before me in war-time, and it was not until quite recently that this statement on behalf of the Government came to my notice. But, having made that statement, there can be no doubt at all that they have for some time been aware of the serious waste which is occasioned, in respect of petrol at any rate, by the high speeds on the road. It seems a little unfortunate that they have allowed two and three-quarter years of war to go by before taking steps to prevent the driving of motor vehicles at speeds which are uneconomic from this point of view.
My attention was largely drawn to this matter by information which reached us all in the columns of The Times in regard to the action taken in a country where there are millions of automobiles in use, and where petrol, as your Lordships know, is called "gasoline"—namely, the United States of America. The New York Times on March 22 of this year published an article which was referred to in a letter by Professor Goodhart to The Times. I have procured an extract from the New York Times, and, with your Lordships' permission, will refer to some portions of it. It begins by saying that with proper enforcement of the 40 miles per hour speed limit on the highways, which was urged upon the Governors of all States by President Roosevelt, several useful purposes would be served. It is said that Connecticut many weeks ago anticipated this action, and set its top speed at 40 miles per hour, and that New York and New Jersey might be expected soon to follow suit. I understand that one of them at least has already done so. Then, after referring to the natural trend of raising speed limits on roads before the war, the article goes on to say:
" The wisdom of reduced speed is manifest when we must save both rubber and gasoline."
Reference is then made to articles in which comparative costs have been studied, and in particular the New York Times says:
" It is shown, for example, that the driver saves less than 2 minutes in going 5 miles when he drives at 45 miles an hour as compared with 35 miles an hour. However, he uses 5 more gallons of gasoline in a thousand miles driving at 45 than at 35, and 12 more

213
gallons at 55 than at 35. Tyres wear out almost four times as fast at 45 miles an hour as at 25 miles an hour, and the difference in the tyre wear cost for a thousand miles of driving is $1.35 for the additional speed of 10 miles an hour as between 35 and 45. Maintenance, depreciation and oil costs likewise go up, so that the total cost of operation of the average car per mile, as revealed by these studies, is 2·4 c. at 35 miles an hour, 3 c. at 45, 3·35 c. at 55, and 4·9 c. at 65 miles an hour,"
That is the view which has been obtained as the result of very careful inquiries in the United States; and I would observe that, since the matter was raised in The Times by Professor Goodhart, he has obtained a number of statements by various correspondents with regard to two matters.
First of all, there are those who say that they have never been told the facts, and they never realized that they were wearing out their tyres and uselessly expending petrol; secondly, there are letters from people who state that they could give astonishing figures concerning the life of tyres which have been carefully used as compared with those which have been used without consideration of speed. I have seen some of those statements, and they are indeed surprising. He has also obtained and given to me information with regard to what people find is in fact the speed at which Government vehicles as well as private cars have been and are being driven. Your Lordships know that at the end of this month there is going to be a very severe restriction of the use of private cars, and therefore the observations with which I am troubling your Lordships to-day are largely connected with the use by the Government, and necessarily the increasing use, of lorries, tractors and all the other Government vehicles which we see travelling about the country. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, who is replying for the Government, will not be induced by any statements which may have been put before him to express the opinion that Government vehicles are generally driven at very moderate speeds. Since I put down this Motion, I have been looking at the speeds at which such vehicles are driven, and it is really idle to say that they are driven at an economic speed.
Moreover, I have obtained other information. I know of a gentleman whose business it is to travel round the country making speeches at camps and elsewhere. He is provided—because, of course, this
214
work is unpaid—with a Government car, and he tells me that he is continually driven at speeds exceeding 50 and 60 miles per hour. He gives me a particular case where, going to a somewhat distant camp, he averaged 40 miles per hour for the trip, and for long stretches went at 60 miles per hour. There was no need for this speed, because it brought him to his camp about an hour before his lecture.
I have also in my hand a statement by a coroner for a district in the Midlands. He tells me that in his part of the world every day along the arterial roads from north to south lorries forge ahead, even with heavy loads, and sometimes with trailers, at 40 miles per hour to 55 miles per hour, according to his own careful checking. He adds, of course, something about the increase in accidents due to these speeds. But with regard to that, for my part I intend to say nothing today. We have debated this over and over again in this House, and apparently the Government are not persuaded as to the matter of increase in accidents. I am merely concerned with something of which the Government know far more than I do—namely, the great economy which can be obtained now quite readily by insistence on any economic speed being used by Government and other cars, and the emergencies at the present time in regard to economy in the various matters I have mentioned—a position which will get more and more serious if the war goes on for any length of time, particularly having regard to the unfortunate and untoward events in Malaya and elsewhere.
The Government must be in a position—and I hope to hear something about it—to tell us what information they have obtained from the records in various districts as to the petrol consumption of the vehicles under various commanding officers' control. My information is that there is a very wide difference between the number of miles per gallon which are in fact achieved by Service vehicles in different parts of the country, and I believe that very largely those differences are due to the fact that some commanding officers are very strict with their men about their driving at moderate speeds, and in other parts of the country they are not. I have obtained information from certain persons to show that drivers of Service vehicles in many parts of the country say that they have never been told anything about speeds from the point

215
of view of economy. They have been told that they must drive carefully, and that is what their commanding officers tell them in some places. In other places they have been told that they must drive at the moderate speed of 30 miles per hour, for instance, and if there are heavy vehicles it goes down to 20, according to Government Regulations, in some places. And there petrol consumption is diminished.
Of course it is not only petrol consumption and rubber tyres which suffer so much from fast travel, but there is also—especially in the case of Government cars—the matter of upkeep. If you drive a heavy vehicle, a trolley, laden with anything you like for Government service, at 40 miles per hour or more on an ordinary road, the trolley is apt to be shaken to bits after a mileage which is far too little, and far less than it would have been able to stand if only the driving had been at a very moderate speed. The Government know all about this, but so far very little has been done to enforce the use of economic speeds in these cases.
It is quite clear that it is no good making regulations if you do not have them obeyed, and to me it is clear that the police have been increasingly careless on the subject of attacking people for excessive speed, that is in the case of private motor cars—I do not suppose that in the case of public service vehicles they interfere at all, or practically not at all My suggestion, with all respect, to the Minister of Transport or anybody else who may be concerned, is that they should really take steps from now on to make it almost impossible for cars to be driven at high speed during the currency of the present war. I would observe in passing that we must not expect to get petrol and rubber easily again when the war comes to an end. Rubber trees take seven years before you can tap them. Oil wells that have been destroyed will take years to be put once more in a position where pumping operations can be resumed. We must be content in this country to wait quite a long time after the war before petrol and rubber are once more available almost without stint, and we must make up our minds to be economical in our use of those valuable articles. The same is true with regard to wear and tear of cars. We shall not get cars after the war for a long time at
216
ordinary prices. They will be in the nature of a luxury which can only be obtained by care and the possession of plenty of money. So far as. I can make out from the evidence, roughly the Government can secure an extra mileage of five miles per gallon from an ordinary light Government vehicle, and they can save, I believe, at least 50 per cent. of the cost of the tyres, by really insisting upon the sort of speeds which they themselves say are the right speeds—28 to 30 miles an hour.
Before sitting down I should like to say a word on a cognate subject. As I have already pointed out, at the end of this month we are going to have a great diminution in the number of private cars, which are going to be laid up in very large numbers. I should like to remind the Minister that there are a great number of people, owners of generally quite small motor cars, who live miles from a town and miles from a 'bus route, people who live in small houses with quite moderate gardens, parts of which are now used for raising potatoes and green vegetables, and who spend nearly all their time, apart from their children if they have any, in war work of one kind or another. If the Government are unable to economize petrol and rubber in the way which I suggest, I feel that the Minister will be compelled to exercise with a stony heart his powers of driving these people off the roads by refusing them licences to drive. If he feels bound to do so, the position will be that a great number of these people will be driven to leave the villages or the places where they live and to go into the towns to swell the large number of people who have already gone there, and all the very useful work, essentially of the nature of war work, which they are doing in the villages all over the country, will, unfortunately, come to an end.
That will not be for the benefit of the country as a whole, and really the amount of petrol which they need, more particularly if they, too, are compelled to keep to a maximum of 28–30 miles an hour, is a small amount. All of it, I am perfectly certain, can be saved by the kind of measures which have already been taken in the States and which already ought to have been taken here. Although I know that the Minister of Transport is bound to present a very stony countenance

217
to the world, I believe it is possible that beneath that granitic exterior, he may have a heart of gold. I should like to believe that, for if he really realizes the position and the number of people for whom I am specially pleading, and the useful work they are doing all over the country, he will see if he cannot be somewhat tender in his treatment of them, and will see that every possible endeavour is made to enable them to carry on their most useful service in the neighbourhoods where they live.
I have already said I am deliberately leaving out any possible saving in life or injury to man, woman, and child, but it will perhaps not be wrong if I mention that in Canada, where they have recently been engaged in reducing the speed of motor vehicles of all "kinds, they have found that mortality and injury of people on the roads have been very largely diminished. If that should happen, nobody surely would regret it, but that is not the point I am on at the moment. I am saying "Leave that out, treat yourselves as economists in this matter, and see if you cannot do something to reduce the expenditure of the articles I have mentioned, before you find yourselves in a still worse position." I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House more than a few moments in following my noble: and learned friend who has spoken with such great force and such wealth of information. He finished by saying he did not wish to go into the question of the diminution of mortality and injury which would take place if there were a reduction of speed. No more do I. We have had the opportunity of discussing that question once or twice in this House. I hope we may have more opportunities in the future until we have succeeded in converting, not the Government, but the powers that organize the political forces of the Government, who do not see that many votes are to be gained by diminishing the slaughter on the roads. All I would add on that particular side: to-day is that slaughter on the roads does mean a very great economic loss as well. That is quite obvious, and though I do not wish to go into it, it comes into the considerations which my noble and learned friend has in view.
218
As to the main point he makes, there is no doubt at all, I suppose, that not only with respect to motor cars, but with respect to locomotive engines, steamships on the sea, and so on, there is always an economic speed. Everybody has always been aware of that, and if you go beyond it, the cost of moving is out of all proportion to the actual increase of speed. That is the fundamental point of my noble friend's Motion. I hope the Government will be able to do something to meet him. The present time, when long-distance private travelling on the roads has been cut down, and is going to be cut down further, is an appropriate moment for trying this experiment because it will not inflict any great hardship or any great inconvenience on anybody. There are cases, no doubt, in which Government vehicles—not only Army vehicles—are driven too fast. But I cannot say from what I have personally observed in the part of the country where I live, that that is the case. But there is no conceivable reason why, in the vast majority of cases, they should be driven fast, and if the Government arrive at the decision that, roughly speaking, 28 to 30 miles an hour is the economic speed, this is an admirable opportunity for trying that out as a definite source of economy.
There is one other point I should like to mention if only for the purpose of asking the Government to inquire into it. From various information that has reached me, it is suggested that Government cars used in the kind of way they were used by my noble friend who went about speaking—that kind of use—are frequently of a size and horse-power quite unnecessarily high. As my noble friend is well aware, every increase of horsepower immensely increases running costs. I do not know whether my noble friend will institute inquiry on that point, and find out whether the necessary work of Government could not be carried on by using cars of less expensive type than I have indicated. I do not wish to detain the House further, but would only express my warm agreement with the views put forward by my noble and learned friend.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I am sure we are very grateful to Lord Maugham for having given us an educational lecture on the economics of transportation. We have got to remember that, to-day, transportation by

219
mechanically-propelled road vehicles is divided into two classes—one with very little petrol and no possibility of buying any tyres, and the other, the Services, with all the petrol and ail the tyres they require. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount could possibly say that private motorists have not already learnt the real lessons of economy as to speed, because the general speed of private cars up and down the country has got down to-day to the economic level. I do a good deal of motoring about the country, and I very seldom see a car going much more than 30 miles an hour. That is not true about Service vehicles. They are going a good deal faster than is economically sound. I might remind my noble friend that, as far as heavy vehicles are concerned, the speed limit has always been 30 miles an hour and in some cases 20, so that theoretically there is a law against their travelling above the economic limit.
My noble friend did forget one particular point about which I should like to remind the House. Although there is a lot of wear and tear in the respects he mentioned, he entirely forgot the wear and tear on the roads, which is far and away the most expensive contribution towards transportation in this country. I wish my noble friend Lord Croft had been here to listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Maugham, because they were really addressed to the Services rather than to the Minister of Transport who is quite guiltless in this matter, whereas the Services can always issue their regulations.
But if we are to talk about economy of fuel, there is one point I would like to bring before the House, and that is in reference to the ridiculous regulations which are still in force, such as the abolition of directive signposts. The waste of petrol which goes on in this country through stopping at a corner and asking the people the way—and they are invariably refugees who do not know—is much worse than any fast driving. There was a time when perhaps the abolition of those signposts was an important contribution to our safety, but I maintain that that has now gone. We have now a very efficient organization, the Home Guard, and is it really not possible that they could not take down all the signposts in England overnight if danger arose? When
220
people say that this his been done in order to confuse parachutists, I would ask, have we been having the number of parachutists which justifies such a great inconvenience as has resulted from taking down the signposts? I think it is time some of these absurdities, which were introduced at a very critical time, were done away with. I noticed even to-day that a certain bank must cross out the name of the place where the branch is situated when it refers to a particular locality, but it can leave it in anywhere else. These things are reducing our war effort to an absurdity, and I think it is high time we got the signposts back throughout rural England.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in what he said about the private motorist. The private motorist has learnt from bitter experience that he has got to economize in order to make his supplementary ration do. He never gets the amount for which he has asked, and the only way he can do his duty is to economize his petrol. I also suggest that any further legislation brought in now would add many extra duties to those already discharged by the police. The police are already driven almost to the end of their tether, and to bring in legislation that would impose extra duties upon them is in my view unnecessary, because the private motorist well knows he has to economize if he is going to be able to do the duty for which petrol is given to him. I listened with great interest to what the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, told us about what can be done by means of low-speed, but we all fully realize this. The Government have given us a great deal of propaganda on this aspect of the matter. If I might make one other suggestion, it is that when each application for supplementary rations is made there might be above the signature a form of undertaking by the applicant that he would, where possible, drive his car at an economical speed. Having said this, I will not further detain your Lordships.
LORD WARDINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies may I ask one question? I do not know whether he has any figures that he can give us showing the economy which can be effected by what is called "coasting." I did before the war try and arrive at some answer to that question, and on some long journeys

221
of about ninety miles, according to the rough calculation that I made, I was coasting—that was, going with petrol shut off—for twenty-eight miles, or nearly one-third. I know that when you shut off the engine and start again you are wasting a certain amount of petrol, and that when you shut it off you are probably wasting a further amount before the engine stops, but I imagine there must be some authoritative statement that can be made on this question. There is the possibility of very considerable economy, I should imagine, by coasting wisely.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister of Transport has been called away on urgent business connected with his Department, and he has asked me to reply, which I am doing at very short notice. I will, therefore, ask my noble friend Lord Maugham and your Lordships to forgive any shortcomings in my answer. His Majesty's Government, I am sure, are very grateful to my noble friend for drawing the attention of the House to this matter, which is of the utmost importance. It is of vital importance to make every possible economy in the use of rubber of which, of course, we have lost vast quantities, as one noble Lord said, and also, as I think my noble friend Lord Cecil pointed out, there is the effect of the general wear and tear of motor vehicles. This is a point which we think should be driven home at every available opportunity. The importance of cutting out every wasteful or non-essential use cannot be over-stressed.
It is common ground, as all my noble friends who have spoken have said, that the driving of motor vehicles at high speeds is very wasteful of rubber and fuel, and the Government have given most careful consideration to the best means of reducing unjustifiable extravagance of this type. The maximum speeds of commercial vehicles are already fixed and in no case exceed 30 miles per hour. The question of further limitation of speed, therefore, applies only to private cars. As my noble friend who moved this Motion has said, the President of the United States has requested the Governors of States to introduce overall speed limits of 40 miles per hour, and it is known that seven States have already done so. The first point, therefore, that we had to decide was whether the Government should take similar action in this country,
222
and after very careful deliberation the Government have come to the conclusion that in the circumstances now obtaining in this country such action would not be expedient. I will inform your Lordships of a few of the reasons which lead them to this conclusion.
As your Lordships know, after the end of this month there will to all intents and purposes be no private motoring in the United Kingdom owing to the abolition of the basic rationing, and, apart from minor exceptions, it will only be possible to use a motor car for purposes directly connected with the war effort. Therefore the private motorist, as such, will have ceased to exist for the time being. The number of cars on the roads will in consequence be very drastically reduced. In these circumstances the saving of rubber due to the imposition of a maximum speed limit of 40 miles per hour on private-cars would be small. Nevertheless, in present circumstances, we cannot neglect the smallest saving, and if there were no further objection we should have imposed such a speed limit, but there is very substantial further objection. This I think was touched on in the speech to which we have just listened by my noble friend Lord Gifford. The Government had to consider whether such a speed limit would be enforceable—your Lordships are quite aware that it is no good making a road regulation if you cannot enforce it properly—and whether any such enforcement would be economical of men and materials. The Government concluded that in present circumstances they could not enforce it unless they greatly increased police supervision and in particular mobile patrols. The increasing demand for man-power for other purposes would make it difficult to do this, and the extra mobile patrols would need many fast cars and would themselves consume rubber. A reasoned appeal to motor drivers would be as effective as an unenforceable regulation, and the Government, therefore, are about to appeal to all drivers of vehicles not to exceed a speed of 40 miles per hour, and by careful driving to minimize their consumption of rubber and fuel.
Now I pass to the question of cars driven on Government business. In this case the Government are not content only to appeal to drivers. One or two speakers, including, I think, the noble Lord who

223
introduced the subject, have referred to the great speed at which Army and Service vehicles are driven. Speaking for myself, I must say, living in a part of the country where there are a great many troops, that in the last few months I have seen a very great improvement in the speed and the care with which military vehicles are driven. I must say that in justice to the Army. Whereas some time ago one was in fear of being killed at nearly every corner by fast-driven vehicles, that sort of driving is now very much the exception. It shows that the Departments concerned have taken the action which is required. The Fighting Services are issuing instructions that their cars should not, in ordinary circumstances, be driven at speed over 40 miles per hour. All Civil Government Departments are to issue instructions that cars under their control should not, save under exceptional circumstances, be driven at speed over 40 miles per hour. My noble friend the Minister is arranging with the Ministers of Information and Supply for full publicity to be given to these instructions and for an appeal to be made to private drivers that they should comply with the rule laid down for the Fighting Services and for the Civil Departments.
LORD GAINFORD: May I ask whether that applies to motor bicycles as well as other vehicles?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: They are commonly driven much faster than that.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have had no notice of the question but I should say that it will. However, I will bring the matter to the notice of my noble friend. As your Lordships are aware, a system of tyre rationing has been introduced and we are seeking a means by which this system of control can be administered on the basis that cars are not to be driven at speeds exceeding 40 miles per hour. Thus a new tyre might not be obtainable when the old tyre has been used extravagantly. Furthermore, every Government Department is once more to review the number of cars maintained under their control both at headquarters and in their regional organizations, and we are asking them to make a further reduction in their number. I believe that the War Office have already
224
instituted a sweeping examination as to the number of cars, and I think that a number of Staff cars are to be reduced in size in future.
While I have directed my remarks in the main to the question of tyre economy, the noble Viscount will appreciate that the measures which the Government are adopting will also achieve savings in fuel, oil and maintenance. Of all the major war materials of war, rubber is perhaps the most precious. We are taking every practicable and reasonable step to effect economies so far as motor transport is concerned, but much must depend on the care and public spirit of each and every user. My noble friend Lord Brabazon, whose speech we were pleased to hear, raised the question of the abolition of signposts, and the wear and tear on roads. I cannot give him an answer to-day, but I will draw the attention of my noble friend to this matter. My noble friend Lord Wardington spoke about coasting. I have no figures about that. I agree that it is a useful thing to do, but I am afraid it is a thing that one always means to do and always forgets. My noble friend tells me that he coasted thirty miles out of ninety, which is very good. That is a matter which I will also bring to the notice of my noble friend the Minister. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are quite alive to the seriousness of the issue and that they will not hesitate to take any effective step to conserve rubber for vital purposes. I have answered this debate at short notice, and I am afraid very imperfectly, but I will most certainly see that the views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, and other speakers are brought to the notice of my noble friend the Minister and his advisers.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I ask why the Government have fixed a speed of 40 miles per hour when they have said, I understand, that 28 to 30 miles is the most economical speed?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot answer that, but I will inquire and let my noble friend know privately.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the reply he has made and I am very much obliged also to the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, who unfortunately

225
is unable to be here to-day, for the care and pains he has taken in considering this problem. I must say, however, that the point just mentioned by my noble friend, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, has also occurred to me. It is most difficult to understand why the Government, who say they are desirous of saving every gallon of petrol and every ounce of rubber—if you reckon rubber in ounces—should yet be so chary about taking a firm stand that, knowing 28 to 30 miles an hour to be the economic speed, they advise people not to travel at more than 40 miles per hour. To advise people—that is going to induce a number of persons to raise the speed at which they have been travelling, as we are told, in many parts of the country, from 30 miles to 40 miles per hour. I should have thought that, if the Government were really anxious to save all they can, they would have made the speed 30 miles and not 40 miles.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon said that private people driving private cars had already learnt all about economic driving, and I gathered from him that driving at an economic speed was now almost universal. All I can reply is that that is not my experience. Within the last week I have been driven by a member of your Lordships' House, who is in frequent attendance here, at a speed much nearer 50 miles than 30 miles an hour. I protested and I told the noble Lord that I should complain of his conduct in this House. I have complained, although without mentioning his name. I can assure your Lordships that the speed did not seem very fast and that he was perfectly unconscious of the fact—because, like everyone else, he is short of petrol—that he was driving at an uneconomic speed. I have had similar experiences during the last month or so when being driven by others. I do not believe, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that people do keep to 30 miles an hour. I was driven a short time ago by a member of another place. I thought that we were travelling at a very moderate speed, but we were held up and he was fined. I was quite unaware, because I was not thinking about it, that we were driving at an uneconomic speed. He was driving in London at more than 30 miles an hour.
I said nothing about wear and tear of roads to which, I think, Lord Brabazon
226
very usefully called attention. That was simply because I had not got any figures or any other positive evidence which I could put before your Lordships. The facts which I have put before your Lordships are, I believe—speaking as one who has been accustomed to judge evidence for many years—conclusive to show that the case I have endeavoured to make before your Lordships is a sound one, and that economy will be obtained in all these various directions by a reduction of speed to the utmost economical limit. Being accustomed to be fair, I wish to say that I believe it is true that Army lorries are now, and have been during the last year, driven with much more care than they used to be, and I am only too glad to give my testimony in favour of that view.
There is only one other thing which I wish to say. The Government propose to make no regulation, because, they say, they have no means of enforcing it. I believe it to be true that they have no means of enforcing it, but I do not believe that that is a good reason. My experience is that this is a law-abiding country and if the people are told that 30 miles an hour is their maximum legal speed, the great number of them who, at present, do not think about it—such as the noble Lord to whom I have referred, who drove me during last week at the high speed I have mentioned—will endeavour to comply with the law, although there is not a policeman to stop them at every corner, nor a patrol car to catch them up and prevent them going on. I am convinced that the great majority of people will abide by a definite rule, and there is no way of showing more clearly that the Government are in earnest about this matter than by making a definite regulation. If the Government have made up their minds upon this, of course, I say no more, but I do earnestly hope that they will consider the matter of 40 miles an hour and reduce it to 30 miles in the admonitions which they propose to give to the public. I am quite sure that by that they will save millions of gallons of petrol in the course of a year, many, many tons of rubber, and it may be, incidentally, though I am not laying stress on it, thousands of lives. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the speech which he has made, and I beg leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INVASION: STATUS OF CIVILIANS.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they can now state the terms of the instructions to be issued to the civilian population, including the police and the Civil Defence Services, as to their conduct in the event of invasion; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise this matter again at the request of many of my noble friends, some of whom are in the House to-day, and after consultation with the Lord President of the Council who has been dealing with the matter on behalf of the Government since the Lord Chancellor made his remarkable speech, which pleased all of us, I believe, very much. But how great was the divergence between what the Lord Chancellor then said was the duty of the citizen and what the citizen was told to do by a leaflet which I did not then quote, but which I will quote to-day. The divergence is so complete, so astonishing that I really must ask your Lordships to bear with me while I point it out. This is what the leaflet says. It is a very short passage that I read: It begins "What to do if fighting break out in my neighbourhood." And then follows these words which have caused the utmost despondency in all Allied and friendly countries: "Keep indoors or in your shelter until the battle is over." Those are the orders.
If I may, I would like to have the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War for one moment. He is concerned in this matter. As I say, these are the instructions under which—until some new fact is produced and I understand that one may be produced by the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire today—the defence committees work. I find that, in spite of the Lord Chancellor having used what I called robust patriotic words, the leaflet has not been withdrawn and all defence committees—I preside over two of them—are still hampered by it. Let me read it again. It says in the event of invasion "keep indoors or in your shelter until the battle is over." Now the Lord Chancellor, to our great joy, said that that was not the law at all. He said:
" These statements—' Don't stay quiet, don't think it doesn't concern you; we expect everyone to do his utmost whatever it may be, everything that ingenuity can devise and common sense can suggest, for the purpose of
228
repelling an invader '—are not to be dismissed as just meaningless verbiage. They seem to me very firm and sensible words."
Which is going to prevail? I understand that the Duke of Devonshire is going to make a statement which may give us some guidance. We know perfectly well that the Lord President of the Council is absolutely sincere in telling us, as he told the deputation that I introduced to him, that the Lord Chancellor, speaking from his place here, expressed what was the view, the unanimous view, of His Majesty's Government. He said that he wished that to be made public and he hoped that I would so inform this House. That I now do. But there is a very long gap between what is said by even so great an authority as the Lord Chancellor or the Lord President of the Council and the appearance in leaflets of this damnable doctrine, as I must describe it.
In this leaflet people are told in effect, "Go to your burrows like rabbits—stay in your houses until the fighting is over. "That follows upon the splendid words of the Prime Minister in which he told everybody to do his duty, to stand firm, and said that by doing so we should ensure that nothing could destroy us. There is some sinister influence here, though I do not believe that it is deliberate. Many people believe that these surprising things, of which I bring two to your Lordships' notice at once, are the work of the same kind of emissaries in this country as we have over in Germany, and who I hope are achieving great success in their work. We all do our best, and I hope that they are getting excellent results. But I do not think that this is the work of such emissaries. I think it is sheer stupidity. But mind you, it has got to be put right. Since we last discussed this matter two very strange things have happened. First, these Quislings or defeatists, whichever they are, having failed to persuade people that their duty is to stay in their burrows, now are carrying on what the Mayor of a very important town told me yesterday is a great whispering campaign. This campaign, it is said, is going on every-where. The agents of it are saying: "If you join in repelling the invader, as the Lord Chancellor says is your duty, or if you train yourselves for that purpose "— and I think it was the Lord-Lieutenant of Fife who told us that that was already being done by people all over the country following the publication of the Lord Chancellor's speech—" if you do that you

229
are not entitled to compensation of any kind in the event of injury or death."
I have a most interesting document which I know that your Lordships would like me to read. It is from the chairman of a district council, who says:
" I do think this is a matter which requires a decision at the earliest possible moment. If a Civil Defence worker is injured when undergoing training, he would apparently have difficulty in getting compensation, as every Government Department would deny responsibility."
Following upon this, the Chief A.R.P. Officer—and I may say that I showed this document to the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, who is going to reply, and he was good enough to say that he would endeavour to deal with it—says:
" The question has arisen in certain districts of the insuring of Civil Defence personnel who are given weapon training by the Home Guard. I have taken that up with the Region, and have to-day been informed that the Ministry of Pensions are still considering this question, and, pending a final decision, it must be considered that Cavil Defence personnel carrying out weapon training with the Home Guard are not employed on Civil Defence duties, and are not, therefore, covered by the personal injuries scheme. This point must be made plain to any personnel who volunteer for such training."
I have had time since I got this to find out from other Lords-Lieutenant whether the same thing is happening in other parts of the country, and I find that that is indeed so. People have read the Lord Chancellor's speech, and they have said:
" If we are going to defend our country, as we have always wanted to do, we had better be trained, and trained under proper direction," and they have gone to the Home Guard or to the nearest military officer to be trained. Then they have all been confronted with this whispering campaign, and they have all been told:
" If you are injured in your training, and still more if you are injured by the enemy, you are not covered." This kind of thing has to be stopped, and I hope that the noble Duke will be able to assure us that it will be stopped.
Then there is another sinister thing. At the time when we were first debating these matters, there came a call that the young people should all be trained, as they have been in Russia with wonderful results, as all who know about it are aware, and as their Ambassador has told me, in helping the country to repel the invader. The question was asked why we should not do the same thing here, and agreement was
230
reached. The noble Lord, Lord Croft, made a statement here that every young man from the age of fourteen onwards was to be encouraged to join some training corps, and notably the Cadet Corps. In my own county the response was immediate and surprising. I brought the document to which I am going to refer to the attention of the noble Lord, and he telegraphed to say that the people concerned need not be disbanded. But the position is that as soon as the Government said: "Yes, let every young man train himself to defend his country; as the Lord Chancellor says, it is his bounden duty," some Quisling or some fool—whichever it may be—issued orders that only a certain number can be so trained, that that number is already largely exceeded, that those young men whom we have urged during these last few months to come forward and defend their country, and so enable our Forces to go abroad, are to be disbanded, and that in no circumstances, it is added, shall any grant be given.
I find it difficult to believe that I am not dreaming, and I think that you will do the same, when I tell you this undoubted fact. I have here a letter from the captain of a Cadet Corps, and what he says is confirmed by the General who has taken charge of the Cadet movement in a large; county. He says:
" These boys are all ready from the age of fourteen to undergo their Service training and, as they are too young to join the Air Training Corps, the Cadet Corps is admirably suited to meet their needs; yet in this county alone thousands of such boys will be unable to join the Corps as a result of the latest ruling of the War Office."
That letter comes from a devoted scoutmaster, who has taken up this work with very much zeal. Since I received it and showed it to Lord Croft, I hear that there has been a further order that in no circumstances will any grant be given to any boy above this artificial "ceiling," as they call it, of 175,000 cadets.
Your Lordships can easily calculate how many young men there are between the ages of 14 and 16 in this country. They amount almost to millions, but some Quisling says: "No, we will not allow this to happen. In just the same way as we make it known to the older men that none of those who wish to defend their country shall get a penny compensation, nor their widows a pension, so to these young men we will say—because whispering campaigns will

231
not keep them away—that we shall have to stop it," and they are stopping it. In the olden days, one would be tempted to quote Latin. Who are these people? Who are these who issue these instructions?
" Non his juventus orta parentibus
Infecit aequor sanguine Punico."
Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will say that that is not inapplicable—I know that he loves to apply these things—because at this very moment the Punic Sea is being made to run with blood in one of the decisive moments of the world. Let us stamp on these people! Your Lordships must forgive me if I am more emphatic than is customary in this House, but I do ask you to support me in saying that we must have an end of this nonsense. We have a splendid Lord Chancellor, who makes a magnificent speech, and then it is all watered down.
I think it would be a good plan to crystallize the idea if I tried to draft a leaflet to substitute for this cursed document, a document which I hope will be burned by the common hangman. We cannot have this "Keep indoors or in your shelter until the battle is over." One should also quote the context. "If you can have a trench ready in your garden or in a field, so much the better." Let the rabbits go to ground at the first sign of the enemy! The church bells ring, and the rabbits go to ground. This is what I prefer, and this is what I described on the last occasion as "the Gospel according to St. Simon." When the leaflet Beating the Invader has been publicly withdrawn—and I think it should be emphatically stated that it will be withdrawn—I suggest something which will say:
" (1) It is the duty of every citizen, in company with others or, if need be, alone, to use his utmost endeavours to overcome the enemy.
(2) If possible, he will place himself under the orders of the police or military authorities and obey them.
(3) In order to fulfil this duty, every citizen should train himself in the use of such arms as may be appropriate and available. The military and police authorities in each district have orders to facilitate this instruction."
I may say that that was the provision until the other day—until this new trouble came along—in a great many counties.
" (4) Should a citizen be killed or injured either in battling with the enemy or in preparing himself to do so, as in paragraph (3) above, full compensation will be paid without delay."
You must remember there was another document which in many ways was even more defeatist than the one I quoted. It referred to parachutists. This is my fifth paragraph:
" (5) Should the enemy be landed by parachute they will normally be helpless for a few moments from the shock of landing. This is the opportunity to overcome the enemy and secure him."
Then there is No. 6: I do hope this will be included; I really do regard it as vitally important:
" (6) As soon as the enemy has surrendered he is a prisoner and must be treated fairly. Food and drink should be given him if he is in need. "
I wrote this some time ago, but since then, of course, what has happened in Libya makes it perhaps apparent that, just for once, I was rather far-seeing. It is important, for in the amazing document to which I referred it is pointed out, first of all, that parachutists are a very helpless people when they first land. Then it says that in no circumstances should you give them anything: Do not give them food; do not give them water—in fact everything that is against the principles of a valiant people defending their own land.
I think the Lord Chancellor will see that I have not in any way exceeded what he said in his speech, except in the next paragraph, which I believe is also accurate—and here I should like to have the support of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham:
" (7) If when called upon to render assistance against the enemy a citizen fails to obey and keeps indoors or in his shelter until the battle is over, or even if he fails to take reasonable opportunity to overcome the enemy no compensation will be payable to him; moreover, he will be tried and, if found guilty, will be fined or imprisoned for his failure to comply with the law."
That is, in fact, the law. The way to put it always, as I have found, is to say, "What would you do if you saw a man beating a child to death? "Everyone says, "Well, of course, whether I was armed or not, I would have to go and stop that." Yes, but as the Lord Chancellor pointed out to us on the last occasion, it applies even more to an invader. It is your duty to prevent a felony, a wicked act. The most wicked act is that of a man who attempts to invade us. So it is the law of the land. A man who does what he is told in the leaflet to do is committing a crime against Statute and Common Law.
I have suggested that these should be the things that we should do, and I would ask your Lordships to insist that this, or something very like it, must be made public. I know that the noble Duke has received full instructions, I understand from the Lord President, and I think he has been in consultation with the highest legal authority—namely, the Lord Chancellor himself—and I hope he will give us some satisfaction. For my part, I would beg your Lordships to agree with me that we will never be safe until the whole of the Lord Chancellor's speech and its implications are not only accepted but are made known, and made known much more widely even than these leaflets, which still survive. And, further, that it will be publicly announced that these leaflets are completely superseded and are indeed contrary to the law of the land. Thus and thus only, it seems to me, can we in Parliament do our duty.
Lord Brabazon implied that the danger of invasion was over. Well, of course, as long as we have these great forces here, that may be true, but what are they here for? They are here in order that they may go elsewhere, and it seems to me—and I am sure it does to your Lordships—that we should all so act and plan that when they go—this great Army of Deliverance, as I should like to think them—we could say to them as they go: "Well, good-bye and au revoir, and our prayers go with you. You may rest assured that the homes you leave behind you are safe in our charge, we older and younger men. We will defend those hearths and homes you leave and love to the last drop of our blood." I beg to move for Papers.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords——.
LORD MOTTISTONE: May I, by leave, say I was given to understand that the noble Duke had an announcement to make, and it would be a convenience to subsequent speakers if he could make it now? I think that was arranged. I did not have time to tell Lord Cork, but I understand it would be a convenience.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA. (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): It would be a convenience to your Lordships for me to follow, but I am entirely in the hands of the House.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I had not heard of that, but I will willingly conform to the arrangement.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: "It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars." Those are the concluding words of the 37th Article of Religion, and they seem to me sensible and robust words, but the law of the land goes very much further than that. It provides that every man of military age who is not specially exempted must wear arms and serve in the wars, and further, that in time of emergency every member of the civilian population, man or woman, must place his or her services and resources unreservedly at the disposal of the military. That is a statement of the Common Law in an emergency which threatens the safety of the realm. Any member of the Armed Forces may claim the help and obedience of civilians, and merely because the emergency exists it is their duty to respond. That is the Common Law, and no Proclamation of Martial Law is necessary to bring that into operation. It is obvious that orders should not be obeyed without verification if there is any reason to suppose that they are being given either by mere busybodies or by enemies, or Fifth Columnists, masquerading as police or as members of the Armed Forces. Subject to this qualification it is the absolute duty of every citizen to do everything he is told by any member of the Armed Forces.
Since the time of the very useful debate which was held on an earlier Motion by the noble Lord, on March 24, the Government have been examining further the questions raised in the course of that debate, and now raised in the terms of my noble friend's Motion. These matters have been looked into, not because the Government want to suggest that invasion is imminent but because it is important that we should be fully prepared and that, so far as is possible, everyone should know what he is expected to do if invasion comes. The noble Lord's Motion on the present occasion covers a wider field than the matters he raised on March 24 since, on the former occasion, he referred simply to the position of the general public, whereas now he is also concerned about the police and Civil Defence Services. In order to get the instructions to the police and other civilian

235
services into their proper perspective, it is necessary to examine the arrangements which have been made for the government of the country to be carried on in emergency conditions. One of the most important developments that the war has produced is the adaptation of the public services to fit them to play their part under the exacting conditions likely to be experienced during an invasion.
Since the beginning of the war, much of the work of Government has been regionalized, and the Regional Commissioners, in addition to their immediate responsibility for Civil Defence, have the duty of seeing that the plans of all Departments and local authorities in regard to all matters connected with Civil Defence are properly co-ordinated. At present, the regional representatives of Departments are responsible to their respective Ministers; but in the event of invasion, Regional Commissioners will assume all the functions of the Central Government in their regions at any time when reference to the Central Government becomes impracticable, and with the regional representatives of the various Departments of State will operate as the governing centre of a self-contained community. Wherever possible, the military or naval or air authorities will work with and through the civilian authorities. Plans have been made, of which I shall give some indication in a few moments, to enable this to be done smoothly and efficiently. I need not say that the civil authorities will carry on their duties as long as possible without waiting for orders from the military authorities.
That brings me to the subject of invasion committees, of which between 6,000 and 7,000 have now been set up throughout Great Britain. The development of these committees has been fostered by the Government and by the Regional Commissioners, but they do, to a considerable extent, represent a native and spontaneous growth which has sprung up to meet an obvious need for collaboration between the civil and military authorities at the local level. In most of the larger areas, the Civil Defence emergency committees formed the nucleus of the invasion committees in which the officers of local Government Services, local officers of State Departments, Police, the Women's Voluntary Services and other agencies, and the military can meet together
236
and work out plans of action in advance. Each civil and military member of this committee has his instructions, but only local contact and discussion can secure that these instructions are welded into a smoothly working plan of action. In every town, village, and rural centre where Civil Defence emergency committees do not exist, contact between the civil and military authorities is achieved through specially constituted invasion committees. These work in exactly the same way as the committees in larger towns which I have described.
I call the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the arrangements vary because, quite clearly, it is necessary that they should. For instance, the arrangements in closely populated districts are obviously different from those in districts like the Peak of Derbyshire. This lack of uniformity is intentional and does not represent a lack of any central direction. In most places where preparations are needed, the committees take one of the forms I have described, but there are naturally wide variations to suit the circumstances of the various regions. In some areas the emergency committee may be able to act without the formation of a special invasion committee; in others the preparations are being organized by a small committee of three consisting of a local authority representative or other suitable person, the local Military Commander and the police representative. In other regions again a special official may be selected to co-ordinate the preparations. It is for the Regional Commissioner, in consultation with the Army Commander, to decide where and in what form these special invasion arrangements are to be made.
At this staged—the stage we are at now —the task of invasion committees is to plan and to prepare. The representatives of the civil and military authorities on the committee will carry out the plans each in his own sphere under his ordinary executive powers. If invasion comes, action will have to be taken at short notice, and the more the committee has done by way of preparation, the less there will be for it to do if invasion comes. The work which these committees can do now covers a wide field, varying according to local circumstances, but including the following: Co-ordination of civilian plans with the military schemes of defence;

237
enrolment of volunteers and the allotment to them of various tasks which would help the military if invasion comes, such as digging trenches, clearing or blocking roads, removing debris, or doing first aid work, carrying out the various orders-arid possibly counter orders—of the military; ensuring that an efficient messenger service is available in the event of a breakdown of telephonic communication, using for this purpose young persons who know the district, on foot or on bicycles; ascertaining local sources of drinking water in case ordinary supplies are interrupted; making plans for the cooking and distribution of food to the military or Civil Defence Services and distribution of food to civilians as directed by the Ministry of Food; making a census of the tools available for any labouring work, and of stirrup pumps, sandbags, and so forth. All these are activities which can and should be undertaken now, and which it is reasonable to suppose will be of real value to the country in the event of having to defend any part which is invaded.
It is obviously necessary that the existence and location of the committee should be made widely known in its own neighbourhood, and that volunteers should be instructed where to offer their services. If invasion comes, the committee will be a focal point to which the civil population can look for guidance. It will meet to co-ordinate any necessary action which affects a number of services. It will deal with any urgent matter for which no existing service is responsible and, if need be, will provide, through its chairman or other selected member, a channel of communication between civil and military authorities. If the need arises, the compulsory enlistment of civilian labour for work of military importance will be carried out by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. Normally, if a town or village is cut off, the Military Commander will be in control, and it will be the duty of the civil authorities to undertake any work which he considers necessary. But, if circumstances make it impossible for the various civilian services to obtain orders from their official superiors, or from the Military Commander, the chairman of the committee will be responsible for seeing that any necessary action is promptly taken and, if casualties occur, he will take steps to see that the service affected continues to carry on. That completes the description I wish to give of the plans
238
that have been made to adapt the civil organization to meet the needs of invasion. Obviously I could say a good deal more, but quite obviously also it is undesirable to say more than a certain amount to indicate to the Germans exactly the kind of welcome that awaits them when they get here. It is only possible for me to give a very rough sketch of these preparations.
I now turn to the part which the public should play and on which we had our debate in March of this year. So far as concerns the position of the civilian under present conditions, first of all he can, and should if he possibly can, join the Home Guard, and be trained to make the best use of himself as a fighter. If he is in work that can come to an end during invasion, he will be enlisted "immediately available" and put in List (1); if he is in work that must go on, invasion or no invasion, he will be accepted for List (2), and will not be called out until fighting is imminent in his own neighbourhood, which means that the work in which he is engaged cannot go on. In either case he will be given the full Home Guard train-in. Later on it may be possible to arrange to take into the Home Guard, under special conditions, men who cannot spare the time for the periods now prescribed for Home Guard. And that brings me to the point raised by my noble friend about compensation for persons undergoing weapon training with the Home Guard who were not themselves Home Guards. The short answer but not the complete answer is that everyone who possibly can should join the Home Guard. Then the whole question of compensation is solved.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Will the noble Duke forgive me for interrupting him? That would be help, because many Civil Defence servants and a number of other people cannot join the Home Guard. It is those people who cannot join the Home Guard who will not get compensation. These Civil Defence people have been told they will not get it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: A very large number of Civil Defence workers are entitled and are allowed to enrol in List (2) of the Home Guard. There are many people who cannot join, and the question is not a simple one. As I have said, the short but only partial

239
answer is that everyone who possibly could should join the Home Guard. The Civil Defence workers can join category 2 of the Home Guard, and they become both Civil Defence workers and Home Guards and receive the whole Home Guard compensation if they are injured in the course of training; but there remains the considerable class of people who cannot join the Home Guard because they have not the time. For instance, clearly a miner who does a heavy week's work cannot give time to the Home Guard. That is a question of great complication which my right honourable friend and the War Office and the Treasury are discussing at the moment.
It is a difficult question because it is not desirable, I think, to put a premium on people receiving weapon training and not joining the Home Guard. I know that in many local Home Guards very considerable indignation has been expressed in regard to a certain number of people who say: "I am willing enough to fight when the times comes, and I am willing to learn the use of weapons, but I do not see why I should waste my time week after week drilling with the Home Guards. I will fight all right when the Germans come, but I will not spend my time on this training; I will turn out only when the Germans do come." In the meantime the heat and burden of the day is borne by the Home Guard, and if at a critical moment they are to be joined by men not fully trained but only half trained, I think it is desirable not to put a premium on receiving weapon training with the Home Guard and not joining that Force, unless of course it is absolutely impossible for these persons to do so. That is why my right honourable friend is going to try and make arrangement for people to get special facilities to join the Home Guard.
Then persons who cannot join the Home Guard in cither category can volunteer for emergency duties of urgent military importance under the auspices of the invasion committees. In modern war, while some soldiers are using weapons in the front line, many others are doing necessary military tasks many of which are really similar to work which civilian volunteers will have the opportunity of performing without engaging in combat. Therefore the position of the civilian may
240
be something like this. In whatever capacity he is engaged, whether he is in the Home Guard or is doing other civilian work, he will be expected to stand firm and carry out his duties with energy and resolution. In order to afford full scope for the training of civilians in arms and to secure that when so trained they may take an organized part in the defence of this country, the Government have decided to make forthwith a very considerable increase in ceiling numbers to be recruited into the Home Guard. This increased ceiling is to be attained in stages as clothing and equipment become available. I hope that will deal to some extent with the point my noble friend made about the difficulty which certain persons are finding when they are in certain categories in not obtaining their place in the scheme of defence.
Returning to what I was saying about the duties of civilians, if stray enemy marauders or small parties of enemy soldiers are moving about in an area not in the effective occupation of the enemy, the Government expect that every stouthearted citizen will use all his powers to overcome them. I think that doctrine will appeal to the noble Lord. I may say perhaps at this point that the document called Beating the Invader, from which Lord Mottistone quoted, is a leaflet issued in May, 1941, and is now obsolete. It is being replaced forthwith by a document which is in the hands of the Press and will appear in the newspapers to-morrow. When I have said it is the duty of the civilian to make a stout-hearted resistance to small parties of the enemy or parachutists, I must not be misunderstood. It is not the duty of the civilian to set out to make independent attacks upon military formations. Such a course of action would be futile, and, worse still, might very considerably impede the operations of our own Forces. The civilian must quite clearly do nothing which would be of the slightest help to the enemy, but he must, on the contrary, hinder and frustrate him by every means which ingenuity can devise and common sense suggest, and if he is asked by the military, as he may well be, he must answer whole-heartedly any call, however exacting, which may be made upon him.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Does that mean he can be ordered to take up arms and fight?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The position is that he is bound to obey any order given to him by the competent military authority. He can, for instance, be ordered to dig trenches and to carry weapons if need be. My right honourable friend has had many suggestions made to him from various sources as to the part which the public should play under invasion conditions. They vary from a desire that every civilian should turn himself into a guerrilla fighter to a desire to take measures to secure that civilian life is disturbed as little as possible. I trust I have said enough to show that instructions will be given to ensure that the whole resources of the civilian population can be used to back up the military. There will be serious disturbance of civilian life and drastic restrictions of all kinds. Instructions on particular points will be issued to civilians by the civil authorities at appropriate times dealing with such matters as travel, the use of roads by cars and cycles, and the closing of schools, cinemas and theatres. Instructions for the immobilization of all cars and motor cycles, except those essential vehicles the owners of which have been specially warned, will be carried out where and when the civil authorities in each area give the word. Cyclists should immobilize: their bicycles by removing essential nuts and bolts when there is a risk of their falling into the enemy's hands.
In connexion with military operations certain roads may be closed by the police to all civilian use, and this may from time to time affect even the users of the essential vehicles to which I have referred. Such closure will take place to enable the military movements to be carried out, and will not necessarily be permanent. Emergency stocks of food have been provided in such form and in such places as will best serve the needs of the civil population during invasion. Supplies will be available even if enemy military action has dislocated normal transport. So far as possible local retail distribution of food will continue as usual, but if necessary emergency measures can be brought into operation and will be announced locally. As long as it is at all possible news and official instructions will be made known to the public through the normal channels, notably the Press and the B.B.C. If these fail emergency measures, for which provision has already been made, will
242
operate. In the situation envisaged it will be of paramount importance that the Police, National Fire Service and Civil Defence Services should concentrate on performing the essential functions for which they have been equipped, organized and trained.
My noble friend's Motion contains a reference to the police and the Civil Defence Services, and I want to make that point clear. It is not for a moment suggested that the police should take no notice and simply remain passively by while the invasion proceeds. It is stressed that the police have got very important functions, and that on the whole a policeman is probably doing better co-operating with the military. He can do so in many important ways by being a fully-trained policeman rather than by acting as a partially-trained soldier. The police can be of very great value to the military. I recollect an occasion years ago when the Derbyshire Yeomanry was first making use of one of our armed cars. Unhappily it came into collision with a civilian vehicle on the road. The driver was confused and the other occupants did not know what had happened. I thought it better to see the local policeman. To my surprise, although I had not gathered that he was on the scene of the accident, he had the whole account written out in his notebook and the Yeomanry driver was entirely exonerated. I told the policeman that I had not realized that he had seen the accident, and he replied, "I did not exactly see the accident, but of course I know the Derbyshire Yeomanry." If the police can be of valuable service to the military in peace-time manœuvres, so they can be of great value in war-time.
There are many ways in which the police are very important people. No doubt their first instinct would be to take up arms and go and fight the enemy, but it is essential that they should continue their proper functions. They have important functions of maintaining public order and controlling the civil population which must be carried out efficiently. Any failure on the part of the police to carry out their primary duties might seriously impede the operations of our Forces. The same holds true of the other Services in their own spheres, but all these Services alike, when not engaged in the discharge of their defensive duties, have the same responsibilities as civilians, but because these Services are disciplined bodies they

243
will be specially qualified and will be expected to provide an example and leadership to the general body of private citizens.
The last subject on which I should like to touch is the measures which would be taken to deny to the enemy the resources which would be of assistance to him in his military operations. On that subject all that can be publicly said is that plans have been made and have been, or are being, communicated to those concerned, but they are of a kind to which it would be obviously unwise to give publicity. They will, when required, be carried out solely with a view to national defence and without regard for private interests of any kind. Civilians should do what they can to keep their own stocks of food or other useful things out of the enemy's hands, but they should not set out to destroy plants or communications, to block roads or anything similar except on the definite orders of the military, the police or wardens. The scheme for denying our resources to the enemy has been carefully balanced with the needs of our own Forces. Independent action by civilians may have the most serious results on our military plan and is forbidden. What I have told your Lordships this afternoon is almost word for word, with one or two minor additions, the substance of a pamphlet which is being made available to the Press for publication to-morrow and which is available in the Library of your Lordships' House and in the Printed Paper Office now. More detailed instructions will be given to every member of every invasion committee as an appendix to a handbook now being printed.
It is hoped and believed that these measures will prevent any possible misunderstanding about the duties of civilians. I can summarize them very briefly. Here are some Do's and Don'ts for civilians: Stand fast. Do your duty. Do all in your power to help the military. Obey orders. Stop anyone who is engaged on any obviously hostile action. Don't attempt on your own account to attack the main body of the enemy. Don't, when the church bells ring, go and fire your neighbour's ricks till someone in authority has told you to. Don't, above all, go and clutter up the roads. Don't, if you see a man coming down in a parachute, kill or injure him until you have made quite sure he is not a Pole, a Czech,
244
a Dutchman, a Norwegian, or one of any other of our very numerous Allies. Those are the duties of civilians set out in this pamphlet and I hope it will be agreed that the directions are satisfactory.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, there are just one or two simple questions I should like to ask. The first is whether the police have the same duty to fight as civilians. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he spoke on March 24, said:
" But when they [the police] are not discharging that duty, and the others are not discharging their duty, they are civilians and they are civilians who come under exactly the same requirement of taking active sensible parts to resist invasion as do any one of us here."
That is one point, and the only other point is this. I understood the noble Duke to say that people were not to make an independent attack on the enemy. Does that mean that they are not to frustrate and hold an enemy parachutist in a field close to them but have to wait for orders? Are they to rush up and overpower parachutists at once, or wait until they get orders?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I anticipate that in an actual invasion area there could be no question of the police being off duty, so the first question of the noble Duke does not arise. I was careful to use the words "against the main body of the enemy." Certainly the public should go and overwhelm or apprehend a small enemy party.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I will detain you for about five minutes only. I do not want to weary your Lordships with the repetition of what has been said in similar debates in this House lately. I will content myself with pointing out that there are one and a half or two millions—and that is an underestimate—of fit men in this country to-day who do not know one end of a rifle from another. I listened with care to what the noble Duke said but he did not touch on what I think is the most crucial point. All fit men must be trained to arms—must. But there is to be no compulsion apparently. I would like to ask the reason for Government apathy on this particular point. Is it because they do not think we are going to be invaded? If so, I think it is not correct. I think there is an even chance that we shall be invaded.

245
The German war machine is still strong and efficient. New forces have been trained and equipped to add to the already large Armies on the Russian Front and at any moment Russia may be attacked in the rear by the Japanese.
Hitler has been visiting Finland and at the same time some of his henchmen are meeting the delegates of several European States in Vienna. Rumour says he is asking those States for another 2,000,000 men. Owing to our just and right admiration for the Russians and their gallant fight against the Nazi menace, we have quite forgotten that there once existed such a thing as the Bolshevist menace, which in its day was a very sinister shadow over the world. Russia is now a great and friendly Ally, so I will not say anything more about that except to ask your Lordships to remember that the Bolshevist menace is very real to the Governments and peoples of Europe. Therefore I think Hitler will probably get his 2,000,000 men. However much we hope that Russia will crush her enemy, the outlook for her is not too rosy. If Russia fails, this country will no doubt be invaded. When we remember that we have to send men out of the country to all parts of the world it is difficult to understand why all fit men should not be trained in the use of arms so that when the moment comes they can use them instead of waiting like a herd of cattle to be slaughtered. Many men in industry and in other walks of life want to join the Home Guard, but owing to the nature of their employment are unable to give the time to carry out the present very strenuous training.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who spoke in the debate in this House on March 24, said that men can join—it is always "can"—what he called List (2) of the Home Guard. But these men in List (2) have to do exactly the same training as the Home Guard. The great difference between them and between the men of List (1) is that they may wait until fighting is practically on their doorstep and they need not go far afield. I would like to see all fit men not now in the Armed Forces put into a special category of the Home Guard, where they would be taught, as Russia's factory workers are taught, rifle, machine-gun and hand grenade drill, and, possibly, street fighting. Home Guards, during their early training, are asked to remember
246
certain words which mean disposition. The words are: "Eyes, nails, knuckles and teeth." "Eyes" for observation; "nails" for harassing the enemy; "knuckles," a blow, unexpected or otherwise; and "teeth," stand and die where you are. The men of the special category which I am suggesting to your Lordships, might not be so good for "eyes," "nails" and "knuckles," but they would do very good work for "teeth," because if invasion meets with some success there must come a moment when civilian workers should stand and fight as they are no longer able to work.
That is the moment when the brawny mine workers can no longer provide the coal and the factory workers cannot produce munitions because the enemy is at the gate. Then, under the local Military Commander, they could, if they were trained, seize their arms and give a good account of themselves. When one remembers what the Spanish dynamiters did in that wretched civil war in Spain, one wonders whether complete arming with rifles would be necessary, or if grenades might not be almost good enough for defence. Lack of arms does not matter for the moment. We should want to get these men trained, and surely there must be enough arms in the country for use in their training. There are many old soldiers in the mines and factories who could be used to help and assist as instructors. All these men must be con-scribed into the Home Guard. It is not the slightest use the Government saying: "They should join." They must be made to join. It cannot be said too often that invasion of these islands is not unlikely, and, in that event, we shall only be halt fighting in our own defence if we allow millions of our fit men to remain unarmed, untrained and defenceless.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I shall occupy your Lordships' time for a few minutes only. I rise to support the Motion, and to make just one or two remarks about it. Obviously the Motion has the support of the majority of your Lordships. It would be very surprising if it had not. We have now been for something like two years in imminent peril of invasion. The Government, by means of the spoken and the written word, have been trying to convey the knowledge of that peril to the nation. But there has been a milk-and-watery translation of those very fine words of the

247
Prime Minister which represented his first reaction to Dunkirk and the defection of France—that we should fight everywhere, on the hills, in the fields, in the towns and in the cities and everywhere else. Those words have been watered down to such an extent that they have lost much of their effect. In fact, so much is that the case that a sort of mental fungus seems to have grown up among a certain section of the population, and it had to be swept away eighteen months later by the Lord Chancellor's speech last March.
Can we really say that we are prepared against invasion when a large section of the men in this country have had to be reminded at this late period that we are really carrying on in face of the enemy, and the Government, in a sort of deathbed repentance, are trying to get out these orders which ought not to be necessary at all? The truth is that the defection of France caught us in this, as in many other things, on the wrong foot. We had built up this Civil Defence organization and those in charge were reluctant to let it go. The right reaction would have been to put the whole country on a military footing straight away, and then all these Services would have been absorbed. After all, what does Civil Defence mean? It is a misleading phrase which seems to imply some non-military connexion. Why should it be "civil defence" just because the bombs constituting the danger which it is designed to meet now come from the air instead of from guns, as they used to do? They did not talk about "civil defence" in times gone by when there was a change-over from bows and arrows to muskets and cannon.
Only the other day the Home Secretary warned people to be ready for civil defence. Nonsense. Why not call it military defence and have done with it? Invasion is a military operation and it can only be properly rebutted by military means. I, like my noble friend who last spoke, believe that the only foundation upon which we can really prepare for invasion is to make everyone train for whatever part he is best fitted to take in our plans for actively resisting the enemy. If you are going to amalgamate these Services, then call the new force the Home Defence Force, Let every individual know he has got a place in it; that he holds that place all the time. Make them all
248
understand that they are not civilians one moment and soldiers another, but that they are in this Home Defence Force the whole time. The police, who are probably the finest body of men physically that we have got, are now, I know, armed to some extent with Tommy guns, but I do not know if they have any rifle practice. They have, I am told, police clubs in which they pay for their own ammunition in order that they can practice. That, at any rate, is what I am told. I do not know of my own knowledge if it is the fact.
This conscription for the Home Guard is working very slowly and it has had the effect of almost stopping voluntary enrolment, so that there are now units below strength. It is very good news to hear that we are going to raise the ceiling, but it is all so slow, and this is surely the crucial year of the war. We want to have the men ready for the moment when it comes. All these preparations, building defences, clearing roads, running about with water, running messages and so on, are all very fine up to a certain point, but there will come a time, as there does in nearly every great conflict, when very little may decide whether it is to be victory or defeat. Many, many times in history have battles been turned by a comparatively small body of men armed and ready, being sent in to reinforce a weak point. As we are going on now, it seems to me that we are not going to have these few armed men ready for reinforcement. All this talk about part-time men in the Civil Defence Services may serve to create doubts as to whether they will be able to be spared. Of course, there are many, many cases in which they are not spared, although they could be spared, and in fact I understand that there is dispute, in which the Regional Commissioners are concerned, on this matter now in progress. All that would be washed away if there was one great Service, a Home Defence Service. Difficulties of this kind would not then exist.
I am glad to see that there has been some mention of the part which may be played by ministers of religion. In 1798 ministers had the duty of taking out the older people from their villages—of marching away members of their flocks who were unable to fight, to places of safety. It seems to me that plans might very well be made now for ministers

249
again to undertake duties of this sort, and that they might be trained to lead away from danger those members of their flocks who are not serving. I mean no disrespect to ministers in saying this. They enjoy great respect in their own parishes and they would be very good men to do this sort of thing.
But to return to the police. That they should not be able to stop and fight, instead of having to go to the rear with their villagers, seems to me to be a great mistake. I suggest that what is really wanted now, even more than the spirited pamphlet which the noble Duke said would be issued, is something which will really wake the country up. Great numbers of people in this country no longer believe in the danger of invasion. If the Government took some drastic step such as I have suggested, it would make people realize that we are in greater danger, if we have this large Army which we send abroad, than before. Whatever we may think of the Germans, every professional military man must have the greatest regard for their military qualities; and the diversionary effect on this country of a big raid, in preventing reinforcements being sent abroad, would undoubtedly be of military advantage for them.
We are told that we have not had to face this danger for a thousand years, but we have, of course, had to face it several times, more recently than that; and, if the Government will not take any hints from Russia, let them go back to 1798 and take hints from Mr. Pitt's Government. That Government was not above going back to the Spanish Armada for hints on how the country should be organized. I quote from memory, but the substance of the orders then issued was: "As soon as and wherever the enemy touches these shores, every man, whether afloat or ashore, is at once to attack him. Let there be no doubt about this; never fear the event." There is something in that. We were told the other day that it was uneconomic to use untrained and unorganized men for fighting. Of course it is, but the answer to that is to organize them. It is easy to do it; we have the instrument to our hand in the Home Guard. I do not believe that we can claim to have done our best to resist invasion until everybody is trained to arms, so that in the last event, when all the preliminary movements are of no more use, we can put them into the firing
250
line. If we do that, we shall have made our greatest effort. If we do not do it, and lose our country, what will it profit us if we have saved our cities from fire or have saved some waterworks from being destroyed? If we do not do it, and if we lose our country, then we, the generation responsible, will go down to posterity for all time as having failed in our duty, and as having handed over our race to be enslaved by the enemy.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, there is very little that need be said after the splendid speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, but, having taken part in the previous debate, it is a disappointment to me that it has needed another Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to secure a further statement by the Government, following up the lead given by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in his fighting speech on March 24 last. We have received a further instruction to-day from the noble Duke, and I think that, when we have had time to digest it, we shall find that progress has been made; but, in spite of that, I think that it is rather a disappointing statement. There are two points on which the noble Duke has hung his argument: one is the fact that invasion committees have sprung up all over the country, and the other is the opportunity which everyone has to join the Home Guard. Let me consider those two points for a moment.
It is perfectly true that invasion committees have sprung up throughout the country. It has been the force of public opinion which has made them spring up. They have led the Government to think of this kind of administration, which allows local feeling to express itself, to organize itself and to prepare; but there has been a singular lack of planning and preparation on the part of those responsible for guiding the invasion committees—presumably either the Regional Commissioners, or the Sub-Area Commanders acting for the Military. They have not been provided with sufficient staff or given sufficient details to organize and prepare the necessary plans, so that they may link together both with the neighbouring localities and with organizations such as the Civil Defence emergency committees, which are already in existence in the counties. I should therefore like to impress on your Lordships, and

251
through your Lordships on the Government, that there is need for planning and preparation and guidance for these invasion committees, so that they may prepare their plans to deal with the emergency.
The second point is one which was taken up strongly by the noble Earl who has just spoken. Is it true that everyone can join the Home Guard? No, it is not. There are certain people who are prevented from doing so. The main difficulty, however, is that a ceiling has been placed upon the Home Guard which prevents the joining up of large numbers of men, both able-bodied men who have not yet joined anything and men who have joined the Civil Defence and other Services, and who can be taken only on List (2). That makes it obligatory on the Battalion Commander who seeks to have an efficient battalion to make sure that he fills his battalion with List (1) men, and therefore he refuses to accept, or discourages from joining, men of the Civil Defence Services, who would join up in List (2). We therefore have the position that the Home Guard, by reason of this ceiling, are prevented from taking in large numbers of the population and giving them training, although they would be much more useful if they were trained rather than untrained.
Not a single speaker this afternoon has mentioned that large part of the population, the women. The women wish to know much more about what is expected of them. They want to take their part. They are organized in various ways, and chiefly through the W.V.S. I heard recently of a meeting organized by the W.V.S. in a certain village which was attended by members of the local Home Guard, who were giving the women instruction and illustrations in how to deal with various situations. They gave instruction in how to use certain weapons, and they then gave an illustration of unarmed combat. The women were not satisfied with an illustration of one man against another, but took part in it and showed that they were prepared to meet any emergency which arose. They said: "If there are Germans to be killed, let us know how to kill them." That is, I think, the essence of the second point which must be dealt with. We must raise this ceiling. We must draw into closer liaison, as the noble Earl beside me has
252
just said, these big potential forces of Home Guard and Civil Defence, bring them all into one force as home defenders, and remove these unnecessary obstacles which are now preventing it.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given me an advance copy of this pamphlet. With deep respect I do say that the seven simple paragraphs which I suggested would give the public the information they want, and I feel bound to say that it is deplorable that the fighting speech of the Lord Chancellor should be watered down, as everything that has been said has been watered down. Even the words of the Prime Minister are watered down until it is with the greatest difficulty that you can find what the duty of a citizen is. But I find this:
" If stray enemy marauders or small parties of enemy soldiers are moving about in an area not in effective occupation of the enemy, the Government expect that every stout-hearted citizen will use all his powers to overcome them."
That is very good doctrine.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: If the citizen is unarmed and untrained how is he going to do it?
LORD MOTTISTONE: I quite agree. I was going to say that things follow from that. If that is the truth—and it is the truth, and I think I discern the Lord Chancellor's own hand in those words—of course you must train them all to arms, and you must not have a ceiling for the Home Guard, you must not go about warning the stout-hearted citizen that he will not get compensation if he is using all his powers to overcome the enemy. No, there is something wrong in the state of Denmark, there is really. I think most of your Lordships will feel there is something wrong when we have this fin" speech from the Prime Minister, and the fine speech from the Lord Chancellor, and then this ridiculus mus emerges. The noble Duke seemed to think it was new that I should raise the question of the police. It was a salient part of our previous debate, and on that the Lord Chancellor made his famous pronouncement in which he said that the police and civil servants have like duties with civilians.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): Though the noble Lord has said very kind words about me, apparently it

253
is at the expense of this document. If my noble friend will look at the paragraph headed, in great black type, "Police, National Fire Service and Civil Service," he will find in it this statement:
" The same holds true of the other Services and their other responsibilities. All these Services, when not engaged in the discharge of their ordinary duties, have the same responsibility as civilians."
That is exactly what I said on the previous occasion; and while I am grateful for the compliments, I do not wish it to be understood that these documents cannot be clearly seen to state what I then stated. The paragraph is not at present before the notice of the House, though it is in the hands of my noble friend. Paragraph 6 is headed "What should the civilian do in the event of invasion? "My noble friend has only to read the words below and he will find out in two minutes that it is set out very clearly.
LORD MOTTISTONE: If the Lord Chancellor had allowed me to finish he would have seen that I was coming to that point. I was going to point out that we want to know what part the police are going to play. That is what every defence committee wants to know. You have to read right down through all these paragraphs. Do you suppose the ordinary man in the street is going to read all that? It is very dull, and this vitally important paragraph comes right at the end of a long document which you cannot expect anybody to read. The police, then, have got to play their part, like the other civilians, in overcoming the enemy unless it is a large body. It follows that the police must all be fully armed. We need not go into that now, but it seems to me to follow. As the Chairman of an invasion committee I implore the noble Duke to see that simple instructions are given embodying the salient points of this document to ensure that all should serve. It would be foolish of me to attempt to say that I am satisfied, but we have made a great advance, thanks to the Lord Chancellor, and I have therefore no alternative but to thank him for the part that he has played, to thank the noble Duke for the courtesy of his reply, and to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COAL (CONCURRENT LEASES)BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: South Wales Electric Power [H.L.].
And also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the London County Council (Money) Bill:
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision.
Read, and agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported without amendment and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the next sitting day.

BRIDGEND GAS ORDER, 1942.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Stroud:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.