Lords Sitting of 24 March 1942

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl Sondes—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

SUGAR INDUSTRY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Third Reading to this Bill I ought to say that it has been found necessary to put on the Paper some Amendments, which I shall ask the House to make after the Motion for the Third Reading has been carried. I am well aware that your Lordships do not favour that course except when it is really necessary, and except when the Amendments proposed are of a very limited character. The particular difficulty in this case I will explain when I move the Amendments, and I hope that your Lordships may be prepared in the circumstances to make those Amendments. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Title:
An Act to provide for the disclaimer of leases comprising land of which possession has been taken in the exercise of emergency powers, for the reduction in certain cases of the rent and other periodical sums payable under or in connexion with leases comprising such land, for requiring the continuance, after possession of such land has been taken as aforesaid, of certain services provided by the landlord, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are on the Paper Amendments in my name which I wish to make in this Bill. In Clause 2 I desire, in effect

351
to leave out most of the clause and to substitute different words which appear on the Paper in a proposed new clause. The point is this. Clause 2 of the Bill made provision to protect a tenant's fixtures if he took advantage of the Bill and gave notice of disclaimer. Under the ordinary law a tenant may be entitled to remove what are called his fixtures, but he must do so during the currency of the lease. Once the lease has come to an end, generally speaking, he would not be entitled afterwards to visit the premises and take away things which would otherwise be removable. The Bill, as your Lordships know, is one which gives the tenant in certain cases the right to give notice of disclaimer, and the lease would then come to a sudden end before he could remove his fixtures.
My attention has been called to the fact that really a provision of this kind is needed for other cases where the premises are requisitioned, and not only in cases where the tenant of the requisitioned premises gives notice of disclaimer. There are cases where premises are requisitioned and the requisition has the effect of ousting the tenant. The tenant then could not get back and would not be able to exercise his ordinary right to remove fixtures or arrange as to how they should be dealt with or paid for. What is needed therefore is a clause wider than Clause 2 in the Bill, and that is the effect of the new clause which I propose to move. If that new clause is agreed to, the result will be that the title would be rather narrower than it ought to be because the title now reads "An Act to provide for the disclaimer of leases" and so forth. If this new clause is added words of this sort should be added to the title "for the adjustment of the rights of the parties to such leases with respect to certain buildings and fixtures." I have explained the need for the new provision and I would add that the urgency for it only recently came to notice. I could give illustrations which I think would satisfy everybody about the hardships that might be inflicted on tenants unless this further provision is made. I beg to move the Amendment in the title which I have indicated.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, after ("powers") insert ("for the adjustment of the rights of the parties to such leases with respect to certain buildings and fixtures").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Effect of notice of disclaimer]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next two Amendments together, to leave out sub section (3) and paragraph (b) in sub section (4) of Clause 2.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
Page 3, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Adjustment of rights as to certain buildings and fixtures.
7.—(1) Where possession of any land comprised in a lease has been taken on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers and—

(a) the tenant has a right, as between him and his landlord, to remove, either during the currency of the lease or after the termination thereof, any building or fixtures annexed to the land; and

(b) the lease comes to an end (whether as the result of disclaimer under this Act or otherwise) before possession of the land so taken has been given up, or within such a short period thereafter as not to give the tenant a reasonable opportunity for exercising his right;

the said right may be exercised within a reasonable time after such possession has been given up or, with the consent of the authority by whom possession was so taken, at any earlier time.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to any building or fixture which is annexed to a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1923, and is a building or fixture to which Section twenty-two of that Act applies, but that section shall have effect, in any such case as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, as if the reference in that section to a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy were construed as a reference to a reasonable time after possession of the land taken in the exercise of emergency powers has been given up.
(3) The tenant of any land of which possession has been taken as aforesaid may recover from the person entitled to the compensation payable in respect of the land under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, such part (if any) of the compensation payable under the said paragraph (a) as may be agreed by the tenant and the said person, or in default of agreement, as may be determined by the Court, to be attributable to the use during any period after the termination of the lease of any building or fixtures

353
removable by the tenant, and such part of the compensation payable under the said paragraph (b) as may be so agreed or determined to be attributable to damage to any such building or fixtures.
(4) Where the tenant of any land is entitled under the foregoing provisions of this section to remove any building or fixtures within a reasonable time after possession of the land is given up as aforesaid, the person who, when possession is so given up, is entitled to occupy the land, shall, if the tenant has served on him a notice requesting to be informed when possession is so given up arid specifying the address to which the information is to be sent, serve a notice accordingly giving that information, and the period within which the tenant may remove the building or fixtures shall extend to a reasonable time after the service of the notice by the said person.
(5) This section shall extend to any case where the lease has come to an end before the date of the passing of this Act but possession of the land comprised therein is still retained as aforesaid at the said date, and shall, in relation to any such base, be deemed to have been in force at the termination thereof.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment which is the cause of the formal changes which your Lordships have already made in the Bill. I beg to move that the new clause, as printed on the Paper, be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 47, after Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, although as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, it is unusual for Amendments to be moved at this stage, it is well that this omission has been noticed and steps taken to rectify it. There can be no doubt that this new clause is a necessary and useful addition to the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should be sorry if any misunderstanding took place about this matter of procedure. There is nothing in the least unusual in introducing Amendments after Third Reading. It is part of our ordinary procedure. What is essential, as the noble and learned Viscount knows and has taken care of, is that Notice should be given of the Amendments. You cannot move an Amendment after Third Reading unless it is on the Paper. That is absolutely laid down in our proceedings and that is the only limitation. I have known numbers of Amendments passed after Third Reading. It is a very usual procedure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before moving that the Bill do now pass, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the recommendations of the Third Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure on the coal mining industry; to ask what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to increase production during the summer months; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is six months since I last directed the attention of the House to the grave and indeed urgent problem of the coal mining industry. We have survived the winter without any serious stoppage due to lack of coal, and without inflicting acute hardship on a great number of domestic consumers. But though we have just scraped through, our coal stocks have now reached rock bottom. Output from the pits has failed to reach the target level throughout this period, and the industry, as a whole, is producing less coal at the moment than in the years immediately before the war. At the same time, the demand for solid fuel to keep our factories going and to generate gas and electrical power has been steadily increasing since the outbreak of the war, and the claim of the home market will be greater next winter than it has ever been in the past. We are, therefore, faced, at the present time, by a widening gap between the fuel requirements of our war industries and the supplies which we can draw upon to meet them.
This gap can be filled, and can only be filled, by a substantial increase in output coupled with a drastic cut in all forms of fuel consumption not indispensable to the

355
war effort. Unless the gap is filled by a nation-wide effort to increase production and to save fuel during the next six months, we shall be confronted in the autumn by a situation which might easily lead to a serious decline in our supplies of war material or to a weakening of civilian morale. The Government are now taking seriously the need for immediate economy in the use of fuel. Their announcement last week, in another place, that gas and electricity, as well as coal, would shortly be rationed, was a most welcome move, though it is a little difficult to see why a step to effect this enormous saving should not have been taken six months or so earlier. Let us hope that the cut in consumption, when it comes, will be really drastic, and that the rationing scheme will be quickly prepared and no less speedily executed. In the meantime, it will be well for the public to listen to the appeal made to them by the President of the Board of Trade to save fuel, gas and electric light in their homes and offices as much as they possibly can. We now have this guarantee that consumption will be considerably curtailed in the near future. Would that we could be no less certain that output will be correspondingly increased.
Of all the many questions which are exercising the minds of those who are gravely concerned about coal production, the main questions are those of man power and management. There are, in certain quarters, grave doubts as to whether the industry, under the prevailing conditions of control and management, is running at a maximum of efficiency. Representations on this subject are, at the present time, under consideration by the Government, and no one would wish to start a public controversy while negotiations are proceeding, or indeed to express any opinion that might prejudice the conclusion of a successful agreement. I should like, however, to dissipate one widespread misunderstanding. The miners are not asking, at this moment, for nationalization of the coal industry. They are not proposing that the Government should buy out the colliery owners and transfer their property to the State. They do not, indeed, wish to raise any issue that might imperil the unity of the nation. What they do want is a greater measure of public control and a more unified direction of policy applied to the
356
mining industry. I shall refrain from entering into the merits and demerits of the case. I believe that everyone hopes that the parties will meet in a spirit of compromise and with a genuine desire to find common ground, realizing that there cannot be the smallest improvement in production without friendly co-operation between the Government, the colliery companies and the miners. Perhaps the over-riding sense of patriotic duty may even, for a time at least, bring about real partnership in this matter.
The crux of the problem of raising greater quantities of coal from the pits this summer lies in man-power. It is sometimes said the miner is taking life too easily, and gives himself a holiday whenever the spirit moves him, but the importance of avoidable absenteeism as a brake on production has, I think, been much exaggerated. If the number of absentees has risen recently it is mainly due to the terrific strain of work underground on an older working population. The establishment of pit-head canteens has done much to counteract this tendency, and the Mines Department and the Department of the noble Lord opposite, the Ministry of Food, are I think to be congratulated on the really striking things which have been achieved this winter in the provision of canteens. The establishment of those canteens where hot meals are served has undoubtedly lagged behind the setting up of those of the snack-bar type, and one hopes that it will be possible to arrange for more places of what one may call the restaurant variety to be set up without delay. There have also been cases in recent months of men taking a day off because they imagine that the Government are robbing them of part of their earnings, and the Select Committee on National Expenditure are now suggesting the aid of posters to explain the extremely dark mysteries of Income Tax. Posters of this kind should be affixed in the vicinity of every pit. I hope the Government will accept this suggestion as an effective and simple remedy for ignorance.
It must, of course, be freely admitted that there is a certain number of genuine shirkers. They are mostly young men without domestic responsibilities who knock off as soon as they have earned the wage they set out to get. Let us not forget that these men represent only

357
a tiny fraction of the great mining community, and their fellow miners are just as determined as the Government and the colliery owners to drop heavily upon them and upon those who may wish to follow their example. Excessive emphasis upon the- absentee merely causes bad blood in the industry, and serves to obscure the main obstacles to increased production. I do not think that it can be too often repeated that what has done most to slow down output from the pits has been the quality and quantity of the man-power employed in the coalfields. The Secretary for Mines has stated that 80,000 of the youngest and fittest men in the industry have now joined the Armed Forces, and that a further 60,000, attracted by higher wages and easier conditions, have drifted into other occupations. A full year ago the Coal Production Council appealed for the immediate return of 50,000 of these ex-miners; but, in spite of the belated efforts of the Government to bring back these men from industry, the net increase in man-power during the last twelve months amounts to only 17,000.
The plain fact is that since the outbreak of war the mines have lost 15 to 20 per cent. of their total personnel, and this falling off in numbers has been accompanied by a no less serious physical deterioration in the mining community. The average age of the mine worker has steadily risen. Those who have left the industry are predominantly young men; those who have returned are predominantly middle-aged; yet only a skilled man in his prime can be expected to work whole time and with a maximum of efficiency at the coal face. The moment has surely come for the Government to acknowledge that their attempt to restore the necessary man-power to the mines by recruiting ex-miner's from civilian occupations has failed. Might they not even admit that one way to ensure a sufficient labour force to stimulate production is to release temporarily, for a short span of time, several thousand young men now serving in the Armed Forces? This course has been urged on them by the Coal Production Council, which advises the Mines Department, by a majority of speakers in the debates in both Houses of Parliament, and in the recent Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I should like to quote the
358
most far-reaching of the conclusions of this Committee, that
"A plan should be prepared for the temporary release of men from the Army this spring, to help in building up stocks for the winter of 1942–43".
I beg the Government to revise their policy on this matter, because, unless we get in the next six months the extra coal which we need, our war effort will be seriously compromised.
I should like to say a word in conclusion about the distribution of coal to domestic consumers. A great deal of hardship was caused in London this winter on account of the inability of coal merchants to deliver coal to households during the whole of the recent cold spell. The coal dealers are suffering from a shortage of labour, and they find themselves unable to cope with the demand upon their services. The situation was eased in certain of the London areas by the initiative of 15 borough councils who undertook the work themselves, using their own vehicles and the personnel of the Civil Defence Services. The Select Committee on National Expenditure recommend that the Essential Works Order should be extended to cover the small coal dealer, but I do not believe that this measure, however helpful it would be, would suffice to guarantee that the householder would get his coal next winter. As long ago as 1925, I should like to remind your Lordships, the Royal Commission on the Coal Mining Industry, over which my noble friend Lord Samuel presided, recommended that the local authorities should be given powers to undertake the distribution of coal as a vital public service. There is even more reason in wartime why public bodies should be empowered, and indeed encouraged, to perform this useful function, and I hope that the Government will give their full consideration to action on these lines as a form of insurance against the coming winter. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, you must be grateful to the noble Earl, who has called attention to this Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which was issued on February 19 last. This is neither the time nor the opportunity to discuss the coal industry generally. The principles and practice which govern it must fall for consideration when the question of our great and

359
essential industries is reviewed in the reconstruction period after the war. During the war it is neither possible nor desirable to discuss basic changes in the industry. The point before your Lordships is a shorter one. We want more coal; how are we going to get it? This Report, if I may be allowed to say so, is an extremely valuable one, and an extremely fair-minded one. It declares that it is vital that the miners themselves should realize the important part which they play in the war effort, and also that members of the general public should practise self-denial in matters of comfort in order to ease the burden which at present lies on the shoulders of the coal industry. That is excellent advice both to the miners and to the public, and no doubt it is advice with which we shall all agree.
That advice is followed in the Report by fourteen recommendations, but what one would like to know is what the Government are going to do about the matter. We arc all somewhat anxious, because the Ministerial trumpets in another place sounded rather an uncertain note. The Secretary for Mines said that at no time has any undertaking essential for the prosecution of the war been stopped for lack of coal. I believe that that is profoundly true, and he deserves our thanks and our congratulations for that. On the other hand, the President of the Board of Trade said:
"There is a very serious situation confronting us… our production is… grossly insufficient; our present consumption is excessive… we have just scraped through so far without serious mishap."
The position is a serious one. We want more coal; how are we going to get it? What steps do the Government intend to take with regard to an increased production and a diminished consumption of coal? I do not propose to go into the question of consumption; I propose to deal only with the question of production.
It is obvious that in a complicated matter such as coal mining, the general public cannot know all the facts. We can only judge by results, and one of the unfortunate results is that the output per man per shift has gone down. This result is due to certain actual factors, and also to what I may call, for want of a better word, certain psychological factors, and it is the latter which are the most difficult and the most perplexing with which to
360
deal. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to refer to one or two of these factors, in order to illustrate the argument which I wish to place before you. The collapse of France and the entry of Italy into the war resulted almost overnight in the loss of most of our export trade. Within a few weeks large numbers of men were either unemployed altogether or were working short time, and this naturally applies especially to the export areas like the North of England and South Wales.
Anyone who has had experience of the coal industry knows the extraordinary difficulties which beset it, and it may be—and in my view it is the case—that the Government are not altogether to blame for past mistakes; but we do not want mistakes to be perpetuated. The Report finds that repeated attempts were made on both sides of the industry, especially in the export areas, to impress upon the Government the danger of depleting the industry of its younger and more active men, in view of the anticipated increase in coal consumption in 1941. It would appear that lack of foresight was shown at that time by the Government in not preparing for the steadily increasing demand. We must not throw all the blame upon the authorities. The fall of France paralysed the coalfields. It was almost a knock-out blow. But, after all, that is nearly two years ago. The Committee which examined this question were favourably impressed with the good relations which had been created in many areas between the representatives of the men and the representatives of the owners since the beginning of hostilities. I think it may be said that there is peace at any rate in the coalfields. The two sides were united in their desire to obtain maximum results.
But are you satisfied, my Lords, with the present position? What is it? It is said, and with truth, that with the numbers and quality of the present personnel in the mines we shall never produce the coal we need. Do not misunderstand me. I do not say that the men are bad workers, but there are older men engaged, and there are not enough men engaged. We want more men and younger men. Does the Minister agree with that? Now, where are they to come from? It is suggested, by the return of men from the Army to the mines. It is suggested that men over forty-five should

361
be released from the Army unconditionally, but on the promise that they will join the Home Guard. The case of men under forty-five is more difficult. It is proposed that they shall be given the opportunity of returning to the mines for a period on the condition that they keep up their military training, equal to a day per week, to be paid the wages of a miner while doing so, and to be ready to return to the Army should the military situation require it. Undoubtedly there will be difficulties in organization, but I venture to suggest to your Lordships that an effort should be made to consider this proposal and to overcome the difficulties.
Someone will ask, how many men will be affected by the changes. My answer is that this is not the time here to go into details. I have heard a number suggested, but the Government, with the information at their disposal, can make a far better estimate than any of us. This is the first step to be taken towards getting more men and more production in the industry. There may be other industries to which men have been diverted and from which they should return. A case is given. It is as follows: At a certain colliery village where there were 400 workers, 200 were actually living in colliery houses, who travelled fourteen miles daily to work outside the mining industry, when they were all urgently needed in the local colliery. I am not suggesting that that prevails everywhere, but it does lead me to this question: What about the travelling expenses of the miners? Are they paid for, in the same way as the travelling expenses of munition workers? Both miners and munition workers may often have to travel miles to and from their work. I do not know what the answer to that question is, but it seems to me—I may be wrong—that the same practice ought to prevail with regard to both. Again, there may be cases of production being stopped on account of transport difficulties, or wagon shortage, and it is extremely difficult to convince men that output must be increased if the coal mined cannot be stocked or moved away from the pits. But these are only examples of actual factors, which can no doubt be remedied by care and attention.
I now turn to the two paragraphs numbered 10 and 11 in the Report, and they deal with absenteeism and other matters. It is alleged that there is a tendency amongst some workers to limit their
362
efforts when they have earned what they consider to be sufficient for their immediate needs; while, on the other hand, some of the younger men are anxious to join the Services or to find less arduous and more highly paid work in other industries. And there is another short point—the only one with which I wish to deal—with regard to the Income Tax. Some resentment is felt towards the payment of the Income Tax, and men are inclined to stay away rather than work one day, as they say, for nothing. As to absenteeism, it is time to protest against untrue charges made by irresponsible speakers against the miners as a body. The Report makes no such charge, and the men's leaders are extremely anxious to assist in reducing absenteeism. But recollect this: you will never get increased production from unwilling workers. No one excuses deliberate absenteeism. A man in the mine is just as much on duty as a man in the Army, and he who sleeps upon or neglects his post is failing in his duty to his fellow men.
But it is not fair to blame the whole body of miners, and to say that the reduction per man per shift is entirely their fault. All the saints are not in London and the sinners in the coalfields only, and there is just as much patriotism in the mines as there is in the Ministries. Anything which obstructs the war production by destroying the incentive to additional effort must be eliminated. The response of the miner should be 100 per cent. If no coal, there will be no nation. Still the phrase "output per man" is apt to be misunderstood. Forgive me a detail. If you have a colliery, say, with 500 men, producing 500 tons per shift, the sum is an easy one, but a colliery has many processes which depend upon one another. There are the men cutting the coal, the hauliers, and many other workers. You may have a certain number of coal-getters and a certain number of other workers. If the numbers on the coal face remain the same and the others are increased owing to different working conditions, it may be the output per man per shift will go down, although the people on the face are getting quite as much coal, or nearly as much coal, as before. I do not press this question, but could the Minister kindly let us know the figure of the output of the men actually on the face? Are different seams being worked, or are more distant seams being worked, or are

363
more difficult seams being worked now than before the war?
I now pass to the question of Income Tax. The men's leaders have always advocated direct taxation, and still do so. It is the incidence of the tax and the method of taxation, not the tax itself, which cause trouble. If a man earned good money last year, it is difficult to pay the tax this year if his earnings are less and the deductions cannot be afforded. Your Lordships have doubtless seen many letters and articles in the daily Press on this point, but I hope you will forgive me if I quote three lines, and three lines only, from the Financial News of March 6. It states:
"The central criticism of the system is the fact that it is entirely inappropriate that wage-earners who are accustomed to budget on a weekly basis should pay half-yearly. The method is productive of considerable inequity, particularly where the tax on high past earnings is having to be paid out of low current earnings."
I do not pretend to be a tax-gatherer, but it is understood that there are several alternative ways of collecting this tax, and it is common to most of them that the earner's tax deductions should fluctuate in accordance with the actual contents of the pay-packet. I ask the Government whether anything can be done to remedy this unfortunate state of affairs.
With regard to production, there is only one other matter to which I desire to refer, and that is in Chapter X of the Report. That chapter consists of a very interesting paragraph upon experiments in open cast mining, and it says:
"It is understood that an examination has been made of a number of sites in various parts of the country where coal lies within 20 feet or so of the surface. In such places the overburden can be taken off by giant diggers and the coal underneath removed. It is hoped that these experiments will result in a valuable contribution to production"—
and the conclusion of the Committee is that "this work should be energetically pursued." I ask: by whom? Can the Minister give us a little more information on this point? It is a new suggestion and a new departure. Would it not be well to place this at once under full State control, and so eliminate the difficulties which arise when you are trying to run a new experiment by private enterprise with Departmental restrictions which must necessarily be imposed.
364
Now let me pass to my last point. To what incentive shall we turn in this hour of crisis? Some day the history of our race will be written. Now, we see through a glass darkly. Then, our real strength will clearly be perceived. A great and powerful incentive is that of service to our fellow men, and it is on that ground I would appeal to the miners. We have courageous statesmen, we have men in Parliament with knowledge and experience, and we have brave soldiers, sailors and airmen. To the call of competent and sympathetic leadership a patriotic people will always respond, nor do I doubt that the miners will be among them. Standing here, I make an appeal to them. What a change has come over their industry! It has its trusted leaders. Years ago their chief concern was about hours and wages. Now they are national leaders ranking high among British statesmen. To a large extent the miners dwell apart. They have their particular towns and their particular villages, their own sports, and their own amusements. Many of their young men are highly educated and are authorities on the social and political questions of the day. I share with them the desire that the profit clement should disappear from their industry. I may not see it, they for certain will. But now we look to them. They will not fail us in our hour of need. We are not conquered. The spirit, energy and genius of our race survive. These gifts are our common inheritance. They served our fathers well in time of old, and to us also they will bring peace and victory.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I can, unfortunately, claim no direct connexion with the coal-mining industry, but my excuse for saying a few words on this Motion is that it is the concern of every one of us in the country to-day. There is, unfortunately, in the country, as a debate in another place showed, a certain amount of bitterness, and certain allegations have been made which I very much deplore. I should like, if possible, to try and put the position rather in the nature of a problem which we can look at and try to find a solution, and an immediate solution. The first thing is to try and summarize the facts. These are very difficult to give owing to the obscurity of the figures and to the fact that many figures cannot be

365
given in the circumstances. But I should like, generalizing, to lay emphasis on three points. One is perhaps rather a platitude—that coal is at the moment vital to us, absolutely vital. Your Lordships will perhaps wonder why I mention that, but sometimes points which are obvious are apt to be overlooked and forgotten. We should never overlook the importance of coal. The second point is the nature of the industry as it is. Coal is extracted from mines owned almost entirely by private individuals and worked by miners who work on a shift for wages. The third point, with which I feel your Lordships will all agree, is the extreme seriousness of the coal position to-day.
What, perhaps, is not fully appreciated always is the fact that we are, or have been, living on our reserves of coal. At the beginning of this war, when we lost a large amount of our export trade, there was tremendous depression in the coal industry, and there were large reserves of coal which could not be used. Personally, I have always wondered, and still wonder, why no steps were taken then to employ the unemployed miners and build up greater reserves which must inevitably be needed before this war can be brought to a conclusion. However, that was not done, and it is no good going over the past. The fact remains, as has been quoted by the President of the Board of Trade in another place, that our production is grossly insufficient, our consumption is excessive, and our stocks are much too low. That is putting it mildly. There are two ways in which we can deal with this problem. One is rationing, and I sincerely welcome this attempt that is going to be made to restrict domestic consumption. At the same time it must be recognized that however drastic this rationing is going to be, domestic consumption is only a very small part of our total coal consumption. I do not know what it is, but I imagine it is something under one-eighth. Whatever the cut by this rationing may be, it cannot really solve the problem of the shortage of coal—coal that we need both for our war industries and for the support of our Allies in this war. I was going to dwell on the point of the release of coal miners now in the Army, but that has already been dealt with by the noble Earl. I should, however, like to add a strong suggestion that it is essential that some men should be brought back from the
366
Forces to the coal face. That is the real crux, I am sure, of our problem.
We must have the younger men who can work at the coal face in order to increase our production. It has been said that a miner can lose as much as 8 lbs. in weight in a day while working. It is incredibly hard physical labour in conditions that are sometimes almost intolerable, and it is only from the very youngest men that we can expect good results from this very hard physical labour. Again, there have been, unfortunately, allegations against the miners in regard to voluntary absenteeism. One must admit there is a certain amount of that, but it is only a small percentage, though perhaps it is on the increase. I think I agree, again, with the noble Earl that in the majority of cases it is due to the fact that the older men cannot stand up to the strain, and when they have been working six and seven days a week they find that they must ease up occasionally if they are not to break down entirely. But there is something more needed if we are to solve this problem of production. Personally I should like to see at least 40,000 men brought back from the Forces to cope with this situation.
A second point is one of reorganization inside the industry. There I must say I disagree with the noble Lord who said we cannot make any drastic changes. I think myself that, without altering the structure, we can make such changes in the coal industry as will have an effect on the miners themselves so that absenteeism will no longer be a problem. In fact, I am sure that the solution of absenteeism is to put the onus, the burden of cure on to the miners and their leaders. I think that the bad opinion of their mates is a greater deterrent to miners than any arrangement we could devise, and if punishment is necessary it should be for the pit production committee or the miners' leaders themselves to initiate the prosecution. We do not want to have a feeling that it is always the coalowner's side that is prosecuting the men for absenteeism, especially as on the other side there have been feelings, whether justified or not, that some of the coalowners themselves have been more interested in profits, particularly in post-war profits, than in production of coal, and that seams have been worked which are harder to work now, leaving seams which

367
are easiest to work for later on. From my experience coalowners are intensely patriotic men, and as keen as anyone to put every effort they can into winning this war, but there have been allegations on both sides, and I think the Government should investigate and find out what is the situation. If that were done it would clear up the thoughts that are in the minds of the miners once and for all.
I submit that the problem with which we are faced, besides the need of getting the men back, is the psychological one of bringing in the idea of sacrifice and making it a reality. If once the industry works together completely united you will find production increasing per shift per man, and it is here that, speaking for myself, I think that the inculcation of that idea might be based on efforts of the pit production committees. These committees have in some cases worked very well. In others, they have been either ignored by the owners or by the miners' representatives. It seems to me that if regional or district boards could be brought into existence with equal representation on them, both of owners and miners, and perhaps with Government representation too, the problems of production could be largely handed over to these boards. Once the miners feel that they are taking part in the industry, not only would they be asked about questions of absenteeism but they would be brought into direct touch with the control and working of the mines and there would be considerable improvement. If only the pit production committees could be extended and developed, I am sure that the industry would take on a new life and vitality in its production.
Lastly, I should like to endorse the words spoken by the noble Earl, and say that if we can, at least for the period of this war, try to banish the profit motive as much as possible from this industry, the better it will be. If a pit should have to be closed down through lack of workers, that is a sad thing in these days, but it should never be allowed that a pit was closed down because it was unprofitable. It should never be allowed that machinery was not installed in a pit because it would not pay. I submit that the only criterion, the only yardstick by which we can measure the amount of machinery or anything else, must be one
368
of total coal production, one of maximum effort, and not one of profitableness.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I would venture for a few minutes only to stand between the House and the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government. With the indulgence of the House I should like to raise a point connected with the debate which took place in your Lordships' House earlier this month. In the course of that debate the question of coal supplies was very actively raised, and the feeling in many quarters of the House, if it can be correctly interpreted by what took place at the end of the debate, was that the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, who answered on behalf of the Government, did not appear to deal with many of the points that had been raised in the debate. The net result was not to disprove or dispose of the belief, and indeed the allegation, that the object of the Motion (which was to save imported fuel) could be achieved by a limitation in the use of domestic fuel. The point made was that the insufficiency of domestic fuel demolished the urgency of the investigation of the proposal that was then made. I see, on referring to the Report of the proceedings, that the noble Lord said that the proposal would mean the diversion of solid fuel, which was in great demand, thereby insinuating that the insufficiency of fuel was one of the main reasons for delay on the part of the Government in dealing with the question. It is for that reason that I venture to ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government if he can himself give any assurance that an early announcement will be made on developments or, if he cannot do that, give an assurance that this matter will be urged by him with the Minister concerned.
On the main question of this debate, which was so admirably dealt with by the noble Earl who introduced the subject, I recognize that debates on coal in your Lordships' House always bring a full attendance because there are so many noble Lords who can speak with knowledge on the subject. The Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure covers all the points which it is believed might lesson the anxieties so rightly urged with regard to coal, but with the indulgence of your Lordships I would like to make two points. I have not noticed in the report of the debate in another place last week that the Minister very

369
much clarified the first point to which I would allude. It is that large users of coal in the country are in agreement that of the coal raised to-day, and available for industrial purposes, a very large part is of very low quality and contains a large proportion of substance other than that which would yield reasonable calories. That has a disquieting effect on industry, and I hope the noble Lord will comment on that matter.
My other point deals with an appeal to the psychological side of the miners' approach to this problem. That I think might give encouraging results. In this period, when the medium of advertisement in the Press is being used by many Government Departments, I think that apart from the psychology of the miners, which has been admirably dealt with by other speakers, some appeal of an imaginative character might be made to consumers of domestic coal. If all those open-hearth grates in houses and in offices could give way to electrical heaters there would be economy in coal consumption. In addition to that, I think some encouragement might be given to people in the country to use wood instead of coal—although I know there are difficulties about transport—and in Scotland and Wales people might be encouraged to use peat. Besides that there is the possible utilization of coal dust by making it into briquets. Every contribution of that kind, although it might be small, would be of help.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I would like to say a few words upon a limited but nevertheless very important aspect of the problem now being discussed, and to emphasize and amplify the reference made to it by the noble Earl who initiated the debate. It is the problem of the supply and distribution of domestic coal. I can speak from no personal knowledge of conditions in the cities of the provinces during the very severe winter through which we all hope we have finally passed, but the position in London during the past few months has been grave in the extreme. It is fair to say that hundreds and indeed thousands of the citizens of London have been without not only adequate warmth but any warmth at all for considerable periods. I was a few weeks ago urgently approached by the representatives of one important Metropolitan borough and assured by the Town
370
Clerk of that borough that people in that borough were going to bed after tea in order to keep warm. Arrangements had to be made outside the powers of local authorities in London to supplement the facilities, which proved to be completely inadequate, given by private enterprise for the distribution of coal in London.
Those of us who are in greater or less degree responsible for the maintenance of the civic life of London are very much exercised that this situation shall not recur next winter. If it is not to recur the Government must now—to-day, not to-morrow—take steps to bring into existence such organization for the distribution of coal, plus its storage in advance, as will enable the citizens of London to receive a fair and proper amount of fuel for their respective dwellings. When, owing to enemy attack or otherwise, the existing facilities for the distribution of food in London were found to be inadequate, the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, at once took steps to supplement those facilities. Those steps, in the operation of which the noble Lord, I think, will himself admit he has received the whole-hearted co-operation of the local authorities in London, have gone a long way to maintain the morale of the people in London. They have gone a long way to maintain, as we are pleased to hear is the case, the health of the people of London. But it is idle in my submission for the Minister of Food to provide facilities for the distribution of adequate well-cooked meals, it is idle for the Minister of Food in co-operation with the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Health to increase the distribution of milk to children, if the people of London, including the children, are to be left without adequate fuel and without adequate warmth. Their problem is likely to become more acute as the result of the decreased availability of clothing resulting from rationing of clothes.
I make no complaints against the coal merchants, for they have been faced with very difficult problems. There was first of all the problem of inadequate supplies in London, notwithstanding that the local authorities had placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Mines many sites upon which coal might have been stored but only some of which were used for that purpose. There was the problem of distribution, rendered more difficult by the severe weather, by the withdrawal of man-

371
power from the coal merchants' trade, and the disinclination, and, maybe, the inability of the older men left in the industry to deliver coal above the first floor of a block of flats. The result has been that the local authorities, in many parts, and the county council in at least one, have been obliged to go into the coal distributing trade, and acquire stocks, and, with their limited supply of labour, seek to distribute coal equitably not only to those on the ground floor but also to those who might be living on the fifth floor of a particular block of flats. I suggest to the Government that if it was right, as it clearly was right, for private enterprise to be supplemented for the distribution of food—hot meals—it is equally right that if private enterprise in the circumstances which exist proves to be incapable of distributing coal equitably and reasonably among the population of London, or indeed in any other city or district of the country, then some additional machinery must be brought into existence.
I have no desire, nor do I suggest, that the coal merchant should be in any way displaced. There is, perhaps, no single element in our present economic structure with which we can to-day, in the midst of war, dispense. I do suggest, however, that consideration should be given to the question whether or not local authorities should be given power to supplement, in the need that may be proved to exist, facilities available or provided by the coal merchanting trade. Local authorities ought not to be left in the ambiguous position of being bound by the pressure of human needs to do something which they know is clearly outside their province, and outside their powers. The Government should at once consider bringing into existence—either through the local authorities or otherwise if it is deemed to be more convenient and more efficient—some organization which will assure (1) that there are adequate stocks in London of domestic coal, and (2) that there is adequate machinery for equitable and fair distribution. Speaking for the L.C.C., I can say that although we are not anxious to engage in any further or additional activities, if the Government decided that this problem could best be tackled through the local authorities, I can assure your Lordships that the L.C.C. would be willing and anxious to do its part, and take its share in any such organization.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on this very important subject of coal. It was started by a very excellent speech on the part of my noble friend Lord Listowel, if he will allow me to say so. I was doubly pleased with the speech because he began with something that is very rare in these days. In his first few sentences he actually gave His Majesty's Government credit for some foresight. I do not say that he never does that as a general rule, but to listen to what is said in some quarters outside your Lordships' House, you might imagine that nobody in His Majesty's Government ever thinks of anything at all. Therefore, as I say, I am doubly grateful to my noble friend.
He has called the attention of the Government to the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. That was the purpose of the first part of the noble Lord's Motion, and I am glad to assure your Lordships' House that the problems of the industry to which attention is drawn in this Report are receiving, and have received, the most careful study. Indeed, a great many of the steps recommended by the Committee had already been partly put into force before the Report appeared. For instance, the standing instructions given to pit production committees and to the Coal Production Council, both as to the scope of their functions and as to the methods by which the committee should bring home to the men the urgency of the need for increased output, are in harmony with the suggestions contained in the Report. Leaflets and posters—this I think, was a matter referred to by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey—illustrating in simple form how the colliers are affected by Income Tax, have been sent to all collieries. Also a programme of broadcasts to the public calling for more careful economy in the use of fuel is being continued. These will enjoin people to cut down their consumption of coal, gas and electricity, and will give information as to the means of using fuel and power to the best advantage. This was referred to by the noble Lord sitting behind me, and I am much obliged to him for his most interesting contribution.
The importance of the welfare of the miners is fully recognized and for the past eighteen months, at the request of the Ministry of Mines, a Miners' Welfare

373
Commission has been carrying out an intensive programme for the provision of canteens at the pits to supply full meals as well as snacks. Indeed, during that time, I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships, the number of canteens has increased from 250 to 715 and a further 203 are in course of preparation. When all these are finally brought into full use they will, I think, cover about 96 per cent. of the whole of the mines of this country. Indeed, His Majesty's Government are so anxious to secure proper food for the miners that they will give requests for the establishment of hot canteens a very warm welcome from whatsoever quarters those requests may come. Discussions are taking place with the representatives of the industry and of the Government Departments concerned to ensure the maintenance of adequate travelling facilities. I think that that was one of the points that was raised by my noble friend Lord Sankey. The question of payment of travelling expenses is being considered at present by the Coal Production Council, and it is hoped that a satisfactory decision will be reached before very long. Steps have been taken to safeguard the necessary supply of mining materials, and block orders have recently been placed for substantial quantities of new machinery to meet the requirements of the pits. By the judicious use of suitable substitutes the animal food position is satisfactory.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, raised the question of open cast mining. The Mines Department are at present seeing that these open cast mines are worked wherever possible, and an examination is being made of further potential outcrops. The noble and learned Viscount also asked me about output at the face. My honourable friend asks me to say that it is not in the public interest to give the exact figures, but it can be said that the output per shift at the face has been well maintained, particularly when we consider the loss of the younger men. If my noble and learned friend would like to have the figures, I will send them to him for his private consideration, but I cannot give them in public.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: No, thank you.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, that deals briefly, but I think as fully as possible, with the first part of the noble Earl's
374
Motion. I now come to the second part of that Motion, in which the noble Earl asks what steps the Government propose to take to increase production during the summer months. I can assure him that those charged with the responsibility of ensuring for the nation the necessary supplies of coal for the successful conduct of the war are very conscious that the forthcoming rationing of domestic fuels, which was announced the other day by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, although very necessary in itself, must be subsidiary to a substantial increase in production. As regards the rationing of fuels, my right honourable friend has been able to secure the services of Sir William Beveridge to help him, for which everybody must be thankful. I think that my noble friend will find that, when this scheme has been worked out, it will probably not err on the side of leniency; he need not be afraid of that.
A great part of our security against a shortage of coal supplies during next winter must be won from the labours of the next six months. The men are working a high average number of shifts per week—higher, I think it may be said, than at any previous time in the history of the industry. If the productivity of the industry has fallen, most of that fall is due to factors beyond the industry's control. I do not wish to suggest by that that no efforts are being or can be made to achieve better results from the present man-power in the mines. A small number of men, whose absence from work is due not to infirmity or to age or to the strain of war conditions, must somehow be induced to work more regularly. In this connexion, I can say that the new procedure for dealing with this type of absence is now in operation, and it is hoped that good results may be achieved. It is not easy, but I hope that something will come of it. These men must somehow be made to realize that their absence places an unfair burden on their fellow-workmen, and, in highly-mechanized mines, the effects of their irregularity are felt far beyond the shifts from which they are absent.
At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity to deprecate, not only in connexion with coal mining but in connexion with every other activity, the great exaggeration which is sometimes to be found in speeches, not in this House but in the country, and in newspaper

375
articles, on this subject. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, also drew attention to this point. I think that this exaggeration is most harmful, and I should like to state, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that to say that all managements are idle and foolish and that all the men are slackers is very wrong. It does a tremendous amount of harm here and in our Dominions and in foreign countries, besides being totally untrue.
The noble Earl who raised this matter made a great point of the possibility of recalling men from the Armed Forces, and mainly, I think, from the Army. The mines, as we all know, suffered a very heavy drain on their man-power owing to the war, and 80,000 men—for the most part the youngest and most productive—have gone into the Armed Forces, and 60,000 into other industries. The wastage in the industry is very heavy, and reinforcements must be obtained if the level of production required to meet summer consumption and to build up stocks for next winter is to be reached. As I said in my speech in this House on October 1 last, when we had a similar debate, also on a Motion by the noble Earl, it is very difficult to take men out of the modern Army once they have gone into it, because the modern Army, unlike that with which most of us were acquainted, is an expert Army, and, once a man has gone into it, he probably becomes an expert in something or other, and, if he is promoted and becomes a corporal or a sergeant, it is still more difficult. At the same time, I am authorized to state that His Majesty's Government have decided to release a certain number of men from a limited number of Army establishments for service in the mines. As my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade stated the other day in another place, the whole question is still under consideration, and a statement will be made as soon as possible. I must here refer to the interesting speech—if he will allow me to call it so—which was made by my noble friend Lord Latham, about the domestic distribution of coal. I shall not go into a detailed answer now, because I had no notice that he was going to raise the matter, but the noble Lord's remarks will be conveyed to the Minister for his consideration.
376
I think that I have answered my noble friend's questions to the best of my ability, but before I sit down there are one or two comments which I should like to make. We are now emerging—at least I hope that we are; with our extraordinary climate, we can never be sure—from the third winter of the war. As your Lordships will remember, the first winter was an intensely hard one, with heavy snow and frost lasting through a great part of December, the whole of January and right up to the end of February. The second winter of the war was perhaps not quite so severe in weather, but it was made worse by the intense bombing of our ports and cities and industrial centres, which was then at its height. The winter just over has been exceedingly severe since early in January. For seven-and-a-half or eight weeks the thermometer stood either at freezing point or below. We are not allowed to talk about the present weather, but February has gone by, and we now know that it was the hardest February since the year 1895. I think that people are a little apt to forget, when they criticize the Secretary for Mines and the Mines Department, that in addition to war conditions we have had three winters running of exceptional severity—exceptional severity, that is, for the British Isles—and, without being in the least complacent, which is the last thing that I should wish to be, I do think that a great debt of gratitude is due to my honourable friend the Minister, to the officials of his Department, and to the managers and workers at the mines, for the work which they have done.
I am obliged to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity of speaking on this matter, and I can assure him that it is the aim of His Majesty's Government to obtain the highest degree of output from the mines at all times, so that our war effort may not be impeded, and also so that as much comfort may be given to our people as will nerve them for the great work which they are doing, and which they may yet be called upon to do.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the Government to one point which I think has been omitted. In order to increase the production of coal, it is necessary not only to bring back men from the Army into the industry in order to increase production, which I think is essential for the purposes

377
of the war, but to bring back those who have left the industry and who are mechanically minded. The industry has become more and more mechanized and a great number of the younger men whom we want back in the collieries are men who have shown a disposition to take an interest in mechanization. It is impossible to get the output from the collieries unless we have a large number of these younger men, who may have gone into factories, and a good number of men who have gone into the Air Force should also be brought back into the industry.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the care with which he has prepared his full reply to both parts of the Motion, and for the answers which he has given to the questions which were addressed to him from various parts of the House. I am particularly glad of the announcement on the subject of the use of men from the Armed Forces in the mines. It is very pleasing that the Government have at last heeded the advice that has been tended to them for so long by members of this House, by members of another place, and by many knowledgeable people outside. One hopes, and indeed one believes, that this will be no half-hearted measure, and we shall look forward with much interest to hearing the further statement that will be made on this subject in the near future. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INVASION: STATUS OF CIVILIANS.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had given Notice that he would call attention to the status of civilians in the event of invasion in accordance with the law of the land and the provisions of The Hague Convention of 1907, especially Articles I and II of Convention 4, and to request His Majesty's Government to issue precise instructions, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that a statement has been made in another place with regard to the matter which I raise to-day, but I do not make any apology to your Lordships for raising it in the form in which I have done, because I seek to establish the principle, which seems to me to be vital, that in the grim hour of invasion there must be not
378
only equality under the law but, in order that our safety may be as great as we can make it, equality of sacrifice. Nobody must be allowed to contract out of his duty to do his utmost to overcome the invader. What I claim in the remarks I am going to make is, first of all, that it is the law of the land, and secondly, that the failure to make that plain has caused great confusion of mind which, for instance, mitigates against the success of the proposal which my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland is going to make, and would make it more difficult for the ideas of the noble Earl, Lord Cork, to be carried out because in effect it throws doubt upon the principle that there is equality of sacrifice in this matter.
Thirdly, I can show to your Lordships that in another country, France, the failure to observe the principle of equality of sacrifice was a major reason for the collapse of that country; whereas, conversely, in Russia the acceptance of the principle and its enforcement under the influence of the glowing words of M. Stalin, made the task of our enemies more difficult and has done a great deal to give us the hopeful outlook in this struggle which we now enjoy. Finally, I would beg you to insist, if your Lordships will, that these offending documents which have been issued shall be withdrawn in certain particulars which I am sure have escaped the attention of His Majesty's Government; and I shall show, in conclusion, that the words of the Prime Minister when he appealed to us in the most famous speech of our generation, or perhaps of the past century, to fight on the beaches and elsewhere—the famous words which your Lordships all remember—have been watered down by Government leaflets. In the words of a well-known man to whom I spoke on this subject, these things of course were not issued by Quislings or traitors, but if there wore Quislings or traitors, these would be the documents they would have issued. I think I can make this good.
First of all, the law. I have been very careful to base myself upon what has been said by nobody but Lord Chancellors. It is not necessary for me to call in aid my noble friend who presides over us, the present Lord Chancellor, for he has already made clear his view. But here is what the noble and learned

379
Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, based upon Lord Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 9, page 85:
"(1) It is undoubtedly the law in this country that it is the duty of every citizen to endeavour to bring criminals to justice.
"(2) That is the reason why a private person has the right to arrest when (a) a felony has been actually committed or attempted, or where there is immediate danger of a felony being committed or where a breach of the peace has been actually committed or is reasonably apprehended:
"(b) a breach of the peace includes not only an actual assault but all cases where public alarm and excitement are occasioned by a person's wrongful acts.
"(3) It follows that this Common Law right of arrest must include the right to use such violence as may be necessary to effect the arrest, including, if the delinquent is armed, the use of arms.
"(4) Again, it follows that if a private person has these rights as against a fellow-countryman, a fortiori, he has the same rights as against armed enemies who have dropped from the skies or managed to invade our shores."
I do not think anybody will dispute the truth of those final words which I take from a very high legal authority. They are the deduction from what Lord Hals-bury said, and are what Lord Hailsham proclaims as the law.
Well, that is what the law of England is. If somebody says to me, "This matter is really of vital importance to our safety, but the Germans will not care what the law of England is, or what International Law is," to that my answer is that I am not concerned with what the. Germans are going to do, but I am concerned with what our own people are going to do as a consequence of these extraordinary documents which I hope are now about to be withdrawn. Believe me, the confusion in the public mind is extraordinary. I said to a noble Lord in this House the other day, just after our debate, when I saw him in a very nice uniform, "What would you do if you saw a couple of Germans trying to break into a post office, and a woman screaming inside?" He said, "Well, if they were Germans I could not interfere, because it would be against the law." I said, "That is most extraordinary; are you sure?" He replied, "Quite sure; it is against International Law, too." I went out and went along the street and met a man who is running a large business, wearing the same uniform, and I put to him the same question:
380
"What would you do if you saw a couple of Germans trying to break into a post office and a woman screaming inside?" "Well," he said, "I would like to go for him, but we are a non-combatant force." I said, "Are you sure?" He said, "Yes." I walked along a little further and saw another man in the same uniform. I said, "Is it true that if a German was trying to kick a child to death or break into a post office you could not interfere?" He said, "Not if I was in uniform, Sir, because we are a non-combatant force."
It is the most extraordinary thing—it was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster—that very large numbers of people in this country have been induced to believe that they must not interfere with a man who drops from the skies or appears nobody knows how, because they are non-combatants; that, being civilians, they cannot interfere. That is not the law. Since we last discussed the matter, owing to the kindness of one of your Lordships, Lord Camrose, I got hold of a most interesting man whom he knew, who had been war correspondent in several countries which had collapsed before the German onslaught, ending up with France and only just escaping with his life. In the case of France, what he told me was extraordinary. He saw with his own eyes the effect of this propaganda. The people had all been told that they were non-combatants, and in the case of one town, a small town, two Germans held up the place by threatening reprisals if the people acted against the law, occupied the mairie, issued instructions all round, and, without doubt, in the opinion of this gentleman—I have no doubt that what he said was true—enabled a tiny force of Germans, not even a Division, to overawe the whole province by means of these pockets.
I note that it is sometimes said that our soldiers do not want civilians to take part in the fighting. What sort of soldiers are they, I wonder. They are very short-sighted ones. Modern war as conducted by the Germans means early infiltration, thus spreading alarm and despondency, so that, as in the case of France, the great clash of Armies may never take place. That is the danger, and that is the danger we can easily guard against—highly combatant people as we are—if the Government grasp the nettle firmly and say to us that the Common

381
Law of England stands. I wrote down the exact words which I believe represent the most modern statement of the law: "The right and duty of every citizen to seek to overcome the enemy by every means in his power." If the Government would issue some such order, one of our great dangers would be removed, and incidentally, by establishing the principle of equality of sacrifice, all other methods would be made much easier.
I see on the tape to-day that in another place the Lord President of the Council said the Government were making proposals to arm such citizens as were ready to be organized and were themselves agreeable to fight. What does that mean? We have all got to fight. I hope it will be made plain in this House that that is the view of the Government. I have referred to The Hague Convention because, as your Lordships will remember, these people said they belonged to the non-combatant forces and that it was against the law of nations for them to fight. That is why they would not intervene. That is not in the least bit true. The Hague Convention says the exact opposite. It says that the population of a territory not under occupation who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article I, shall be regarded as belligerents, and if they carry arms openly, and if they respect the laws and customs of war, shall be so treated. That is perfectly clear. I do beg the Government to make it clear to the people of this country that their natural desire to fight the enemy is justified by the law of nations and by the law of this land. It is most extraordinary that any other view should prevail.
I have here a remarkable statement, made by the Coroner to the jury in connexion with the murder of Sir Henry Wilson. He said:
"This pursuit seems to me to be a very fine and inspiring thing in this terrible tragedy. Law-abiding Englishman saw murderers firing revolvers in the street, but they promptly took their lives in their hands and gave chase. There was no sneaking down side streets for these men. Murderers were at large and they must be arrested. There was something very fine about the persistent way in which these casual men in the street stuck to these armed ruffians."
Every German who lands here is an armed ruffian.
382
"The conduct of the police was beyond all praise, for they were unarmed. The only thing they had were truncheons, and these were very poor weapons for dealing with men firing Webley revolvers. No praise could be too high and no admiration too great for the way which the brave police officers have maintained the noble traditions of their Force."
Will the Government please say that again, and withdraw the leaflets? Let us have a look at what this astonishing document, If the Invader Comes, says. What are we to do if we see one of these malefactors who are equally as bad as the men who murdered Sir Henry Wilson? This is the gospel. I am going to ask your Lordships whether you do not think this document might not be burned by the common hangman. What are we to do?
"If the Germans come, by parachute, aero plane or ship, you must remain where you are. The order is 'Stay put.'"
This document was issued in co-operation with the War Office. There is nothing resembling war in that. It was issued by the Ministry of Information in co-operation with the War Office and the Ministry of Home Security. All I can say is it is more like a Peace Office than a War Office, and it is more like a Ministry of Home Disaster than of Home Security. The whole document is shocking. It says, whatever you do, there must be, what I should call, a frigid politeness to these gentry.
"Remember that if parachutists come down near your home, they will not be feeling at all brave."
What are we to do?
"Do not give any German anything. Do not tell him anything. Hide your food and your bicycles. Hide your maps."
Of course the real thing you must do at once is to apprehend him, and the people must be told so. A certain number of parachutists have already dropped. I saw one drop. The particular man who caught up with him had a pitchfork, and very properly told him to surrender, which he did, and that was the end of that story. But in other places they have failed to apprehend them because they have been told by this fantastic document that it is not their duty.
There is one other thing that I wish the Government to put an end to, and that is the suggestion that combatant duties are not the part of citizens as a whole. Here is another document which was issued only the other day by another Department of State. It is an Order in Council, and the

383
particular case in point arises when the Minister of Labour is going to do something in co-operation with the military. We who live in invasion areas have always assumed that the military can call upon the civilian population to do any kind of work such as making a road block, removing a road block, digging a trench, filling in a trench, or any of the other things which may be so vitally necessary. We have always thought that, when so called upon, if the Germans shot down a soldier whom Smith was helping to make a road block, Smith would at once snatch his rifle and shoot back. This document says:
For the purpose of securing the doing of any work appearing to a competent military authority to be needed…any person for the time being in an operational area, other than a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown or a person excepted from this paragraph by paragraph (8) of this Regulation, may be put under obligation, by a direction issued or given by or on behalf of the Minister of Labour and National Service, to perform any such services (other than combatant duties). …"
I inquired what that meant, and why, and I was told: "Suppose you have these people making a road block, and the Germans come round the corner, they have got to go away." I said: "That is unthinkable; of course they cannot go away and leave the others there." "Oh, yes" I was told. I asked why, and was informed "That is the law."
But, my Lords, it is not the law. May I beg of you to insist that the law should be made plain, that all citizens are bound to do their utmost to repel the invader? Let us see what happens in Russia. It is not as though this was a matter of surmise. We do know what happened in France. The Germans had an easy ride. They overcame a place by terrorism without firing a shot. Whole départements were overrun without a shot being fired because they had similar documents to those from which I have quoted. This is what happened in Russia. All citizens of the Soviet Union are told they must defend every inch of Soviet soil, must fight to the last drop of blood for their towns and villages. They must display the daring, initiative and intelligence that are inherent in the people. I asked the Soviet Ambassador if he would see me in order that I might get this document, and some others which he was good enough to give
384
me. I asked him if he knew what the effect would be in Russia of this order of Mr. Stalin. He said, "Without a doubt it had the effect of a miracle." The Germans, instead of finding the population surrendering, found themselves obstructed at every turn by every man, every worker, every farmer, and every peasant. Of course, one might guess that that would be so, but I feel bound to tell your Lordships that the Ambassador was good enough to describe to me what he knew to be the effect. And the Russians go on doing this.
Only the other day—I think it was a week ago—they issued a further order which says that all civilians, and all factory workers must learn how to direct fire, how to repair a track, and how to throw a bottle filled with petrol at the most vulnerable part of an enemy tank. The instruction goes on to say that it is the duty of every Soviet citizen to do all he can with whatever weapon he has. Every Soviet citizen is, I am sure, only too glad to do what he can, and he would be very glad, I am sure, of the pikes about which I think perhaps my noble friend opposite has been rather unjustly attacked because his remarks were misunderstood. But every man in Russia is told that he must attack the enemy if he has the remotest chance of overcoming him. It is interesting to observe that if the enemy offers to surrender he should be captured and treated well, but if he refuses to surrender he has to be overcome. I suppose that many tens of thousands have been so overcome. That is what has happened in Russia, and that is why, I take it, we stand where we do to-day. These valiant people have not been told that they are to be non-combatants, and with good fortune they may perhaps completely overwhelm those who attack them. I would ask the Government to issue written instructions, and to base those instructions perhaps on the wonderful words of our Prime Minister. I would quote them again if I were permitted to do so, but I will go on to repeat the words of our Lord Chancellors in the past, that it is the bounden duty of every man to use every means in his power to overcome the enemy. But he must be told that the best way of doing that is by falling in with a general plan, by doing what the military man or the Home Guard asks him to do.
Finally, on this point, I would like to bring to your Lordships' notice that a very interesting thing has happened in Scotland in regard to which I gave the papers to my noble friend Lord Croft. I had a letter from Lord Glasgow in which he said that the county councils of Scotland have taken certain action. He sends me a resolution which all the county councils of Scotland passed the day before yesterday, and says:
"By this you will note that the Association of County Councils in Scotland are entirely in favour, and unanimously, of the whole of the male population being trained in the use of arms so that when 1he moment comes, as it will come if we are invaded, men of fighting age will understand the use of rifles, hand grenades and machine guns, and will not be, as they are at present, a flock of sheep waiting to be slaughtered."
I think that perhaps Scotland always shows the way in these things, but I hope they will not confine this to men of fighting age. I say every able-bodied person up to 90 must take part in this battle. There is no retiring to prepared positions when an invasion comes. You cannot go anywhere else. You have got to stand and fight, and perhaps the Government might take occasion to say that death is better than surrender. In that spirit let us defend our native land. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had the following Notice on the Paper: To move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that His Majesty's Government should give instructions that anti-invasion rehearsals should take place in every vulnerable area comprising all members of the public, in co-operation with members of all the different Services; and that all members of the public should be informed of and instructed in their specific duties beforehand, and without further delay, thus ensuring that no confusion would arise at the actual moment of invasion.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, early in February speaking in your Lordships' House in a debate on Home Guard matters, I first raised this question of the importance of civilian co-operation in the event of invasion. The noble Lord who has just spoken took part in that debate, and at that time and since, has been most helpful and splendid in his co-operation. We have listened to the extraordinarily interesting speech he has made and I
386
am now going to touch rather on the other side of the question which he has not gone into fully. I, therefore, put my Notice in a rather more categorical form in order that we may know definitely what will be the duty, in the event of invasion, of every member of the public who is not in any of the Services. As Lord Mottistone so rightly said, we all know what is in the Paper which we have received and which was issued by the Ministry of Information in co-operation with the War Office and the Ministry of Home Security. This Paper, although an excellent one in its way, is largely negative in its advice. It asks you to "stay put" and it is very vague about what you should do if you are attacked, or if you arc in a position to attack the enemy. It says that if you see an enemy tank or a few enemy soldiers you are not to assume that the enemy are in control of the area, and so on. It does not definitely tell you what to do from the fighting point of view.
On reading it through I could not help thinking that it was entirely inadequate as a means of getting the best out of the man-power and the woman-power of the country that is being invaded. Undoubtedly we want further guidance and a definite lead from His Majesty's Government to instruct the public through the local authorities where and how they can really help if this great emergency arises. I shall not attempt to go into detail as to how things should be organized—that is a matter for His Majesty's Government—but it seems to me that unless full dress rehearsals are organized in all the vulnerable areas or possibly vulnerable areas, you cannot be sure that confusion will not arise when the blow falls. Every civilian should be told, and have already practised, the duty assigned to him when the day comes. Then everything will work automatically and without the possibility of a hitch, in co-operation with all the combined Services that will be in action or on duty.
I think this rule should apply to one and all—private citizens, factory workers, farm labourers, farmers, urban dwellers. One and all should know their jobs beforehand, as they would know them in a fire drill that has been frequently practised. The whole nation would then be ready to work and fight unitedly and whole-heartedly to stamp out the fires of invasion wherever they

387
might break out. The people of this country themselves are keen enough to be given the chance, but they want to be given a lead and told how they are to do it. I would like to ask His Majesty's Government also to tell us a little about the village committees, which I understand are to be formed in each village, consisting, I understand, of one Home Guard, one policeman, one A.R.P. warden and other voluntary or compulsory workers. The matter was mentioned to-day in another place, but I have not had time to read the statement in detail, and I have no doubt His Majesty's Government will tell us something about these village committees.
Another question I should like to ask is whether the Regional Commissioners have powers to form these committees compulsorily or whether they are voluntary committees. They ought to be compulsory committees and the Regional Commissioners should be empowered to form them. I should like some assurance on that point. It would be a very good thing if we in this country could have a little more of the spirit of an American General in Australia, who, when he arrived at his new headquarters in an Australian city, found there was no telephone there. He was told that he could apply for one to be installed. Looking across the street he noticed that there was a public call box on the other side, so he turned to his chief engineer officer and said "Bring that thing across here." In a very short time it was brought over and installed with new wires. "Now," said the American General, "let the public authorities apply for a new telephone for their call box." That is the sort of spirit one would like to see in this country. It is the sort of spirit that would mean the death of red tape.
Now may I quote a small part of an article by Mr. H. G. Wells which appeared in the Daily Mail headed "The Frustrators," because it struck me that it hit the nail on the head. Mr. H. G. Wells said:
"Here is something for every Briton who does not want this war to end in definite defeat for our country to get excited about… Here are the plain facts, exactly as they are reported in my newspaper, heading and all.

'DISARMED.'
"'When 17-years old Home Guard Roland Parry, of Wooperton Street, Weymouth, an
388
apprentice fitter, read that Home Guards were to be issued with pikes, it set him thinking. He made himself a Tommy gun from odd parts, and his platoon tested it. But his enthusiasm sagged when the police took the weapon away. It sagged still more yesterday when Weymouth magistrates fined him 10s. for having a firearm without a certificate. 'This sort of thing,' the magistrates told him, 'is very dangerous.'"
Mr. Wells went on:
"And it is. Roland Parry is sent back to' play the fool with a pike until, maybe, presently he is shot up by a German parachutist with a Tommy gun while the Weymouth magistrates look round for their next excuse for snubbing intelligence and militant enthusiasm."
That is the end of Mr. Wells, and I thought by quoting him it would give the other side of the picture.
Surely in an invasion we should take a leaf out of the Russians' book, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has so very ably explained. I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government are studying Russian methods of total warfare of civilians and guerrillas, and I have no doubt they will be able to tell us something about that either to-day or on another occasion. Quite certainly that should not be forgotten or overlooked, and I hope that we shall learn from the Russians before invasion comes here, if it does come, so that we shall be able to use the same methods. There is so much to do and so little time in which to do it. The invasion season is right upon us. Within a week or a month Hitler might make his great attempt. Are we ready in every respect? Has every contingency been considered? Has every risk been guarded against? There is much yet, in the short time before us, to be arranged and organized.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THECOLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raises in his Motion the position of the civil population in face of invasion. That is surely a matter of vital importance. It is a matter in which the general public for very natural reasons take an intense interest. They want to know exactly where they stand in this matter. Certainly therefore it is a very proper subject for discussion in your Lordships' House, and I feel that it will certainly lead to a useful and valuable debate. At the end of our discussion my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will reply for the Government. His long knowledge of this particular

389
matter and his unrivalled authority in matters in connexion with the law specially qualify him to do this, and I shall leave all the legal aspects to the noble and learned Viscount. But it seemed to me that it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I intervened briefly at an early stage in order to restate the views of His Majesty's Government with regard to the functions which would have to be performed by the varying sections of the community in the event of invasion.
I suppose that so far as that proposition is concerned everyone would do all in his power to bring about the defeat of the enemy. There would be no difference at all either in your Lordships' House or in the country. On that point all of us are united. But I suggest that there is a little more in it than that. Noble Lords will remember a picturesque story dating from the Civil War of a country squire who just before one battle—I think it was the battle of Naseby—took his hounds between the opposing Armies. He was not interested in the war and he preferred to hunt. Those days, however, are very long past. We are living in an era of total war in which everybody is involved and all have their contribution to make to the defence of their country. To that extent we are united, but I thought that the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, in his very spirited speech went a little further. He indicated, as I understood him, that not merely was it the duty of all citizens of this country to make the greatest contribution they could in the defence of the country, but that it was their duty themselves to tight. That is just the sort of courageous and dashing conception which your Lordships would always expect from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and indeed we should all sympathize very much with him. But I suggest that he over simplifies the problem. I do not believe that that conception would, in fact, have applied in Russia any more than it would here.
There is no question, as the noble Lord said, of contracting out. That does not arise at all. In a total war everybody must play his part. The only question is whether everybody must always play the same part or can most usefully play the same part. For some, indeed for a great number, clearly the most useful contribution which they can make is to fight.
390
That is primarily the duty of the Armed Forces, of the Home Guard and of others as well. For others, the most useful contribution they can make is probably in connexion with the putting out of fires, the carrying of stretchers, the prevention of panic, the repairing and keeping clear of roads for the use of troops and a hundred other duties which noble Lords will be well able to think of for themselves. For some even—although the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, poured scorn on this—the most useful contribution that they could make would be that they should take cover in the middle of battle, and leave the field free for the troops. That might very well be the most useful contribution which certain sections of the community might make.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, what he is saying does not deal at all with the point which I was endeavouring to make. May I try and make it now, if I have not made it clear? What I am asking is that it should be understood that it is expected of men that where they see Germans—I am of course referring to parachutists and so forth—they must go for them. I do not say that they must do so in a place where a battle is raging. What I do say is that where parachutists and other forces of that kind appear suddenly in small parties, people must go for them.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish, and if he is then not satisfied no doubt the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will satisfy him later. The point I was trying to make was this. What is essential is that all should know what they have to do, that they should be marshalled and instructed, that there should be no confusion when the day of invasion arrives, if it ever does arrive. The noble Lord referred to the Civil Defence Forces, to the Police, to the A.R.P., to the fire fighters and so on. He said that is was indefensible that they should be, as it were, reserved for non-combatant duties. But is it really senseless that some sections should be reserved for duties which are essential; reserved not because it is wrong to fight, but because they are needed for those other particular duties which they have to perform? If they are to be available on the day of battle or whenever they are wanted, they must be an organized force with orders;

391
otherwise just when they are needed they will not be there, they will have gone to fight the enemy in their own way, and that, I suggest, would be quite useless. It would not assist in the least in the defence of the country, but on the contrary would tend to hamper it.
The task of the Government now is to see that just that sort of confusion should not happen. Their task is to mobilize the nation, to apportion to each member of the community his duty, and to tell him what he is to do. I do not pretend for one moment that it is very easy for them to do this. It is always difficult to foresee a situation which is not only abnormal but which, in this country perhaps, for the last thousand years has been unseen. It is, perhaps, one of the most difficult tasks with which the Government are faced at the present time. They have tried to do it in the past by the issue of instructions. They tried to do it by distributing the pamphlet, Beating the Invader, on which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has poured such scorn. But it will be agreed by all of us that the Government and everybody else have had further experience since then of total war in one country after another. There are, of course, new lessons to be drawn.
The Government have had this problem, as I think the House knows, under constant examination and I am authorized to-day to make the following statement:
"If invasion is attempted there will be one thought only in the mind of everyone in this country: to drive out or destroy the enemy. Everyone will want to do all he can to contribute to this end.
"Millions of men and women who are in the Home Guard, Police or one of the numerous Civil Defence and allied Services will have their instructions. Others again may be doing work which must be carried on even during invasion. But it may be desirable to re-state the Government's plans so far as they relate to the rest of the civil population.
"The first essential is that under definite orders everyone should 'stand firm' and keep off the roads so as to avoid those refugee movements which proved so disastrous in the Battle of France.
"But this does not mean that the civil population are expected to adopt a purely passive role. On the contrary, the Government has always expected that the people of these islands"—
and I think this will relieve the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone's mind—
"will offer a united opposition to an invader, and that every citizen will regard it as his
392
duty to hinder and frustrate the enemy by every means which ingenuity can devise and common sense suggest.
"Those who are physically fit will want to fight; but to do so effectively they must be organized and armed. Our resources in equipment and training capacity can be used to the best advantage only if they are applied to organized military bodies.
"It is therefore the duty of all who can do so to join the Home Guard. Some can give full and immediate service when invasion comes, and they will form the first line of the Home Guard—List (1) as it is now called. Others have work to do which should continue up to the last moment before they take to arms: they too can join but they will be placed on List (2). There are others who, while anxious to fight, cannot spare the time for the amount of training which is now required of the Home Guard. Everyone will understand and sympathize with their desire to fight, but the unorganized individual fighter represents an uneconomic use of men and weapons. A time may come, though it is not yet here, when it may be practicable to include this last class in the Home Guard under special conditions to meet their circumstances. Meanwhile, there are many ways in which they can help short of actual fighting.
"In many parts of the country"—
and this is a point which I think was specially emphasized by the noble Duke—
"Invasion Committees have been set up. There is, of course, a wide difference in the importance and vulnerability of different parts of the country and it would be unwise and unnecessary to adopt identical methods everywhere; but these Committees are being set up, under the guidance of the Regional Commissioners and the military authorities, in all areas where such measures are necessary.
"The Invasion Committees represent both the civil and military authorities. In the larger places they are based on the existing Civil Defence Emergency Committee; and in the smaller places where there is no such Committee they consist of the local heads of the Military, Police, Civil Defence, Food and other Services.
"Their duty is to survey their local problems, consider what might be their needs if fighting reached their district, how these needs can be met and how the civil and military authorities can best help each other.
"There are countless ways in which the help of civilians will be needed. For example, in cooking and distributing food, filling craters and shell holes to enable military vehicles to pass, digging slit trenches, providing billets for troops moving in, or for neighbours bombed or shelled out, or evacuated from dwelling houses near strong points or road blocks, or in the possible field of fire; assisting in the provision of first aid and accommodation for military or civil casualties, and cleansing facilities for those who may have been gassed. The Invasion Committee will also collect full information about tools and transport for use in emergency and will take steps to see that reserve supplies of water are in readiness.

393
"In a village or small town the Invasion Committee will be able to allot specific jobs to particular individuals, and most of the able-bodied inhabitants will know in advance what their role will be. In larger towns this will not be possible. The problem will have to be tackled on different lines. But the Committee will be responsible for seeing that all needs are thought out in advance and that the town is organized to cope with them as they arise.
"When necessary there will be power, under Defence Regulation 84AA, to require civilians to do any work needed for meeting enemy action.
"In these ways civilians can play their part in the task of defeating the invader. In a closely organized country like ours, this will relieve the military of a great burden, for, contrary to a view which seems to be widely held, the soldier has no desire to take over control or direction of the civil organization in time of emergency. He must depend on the help of courageous and determined civilians, so that he may apply himself to his job of finding and beating the enemy. Those who make it their business to think out beforehand, in concert with the military, the tasks that lie to hand, to provide the resources and practise the methods to fulfil them will be contributing materially to the success of our Armies.
"But I want to emphasize that this is primarily a local problem and those who want to help must rely largely on their own initiative rather than look always to central authority for detailed direction. General directions can be and have been given by the Government and by Regional Commissioners, but neither can prescribe in detail all that must be done. The problem in any particular village or town must be resolved by those on the spot who know and understand local conditions and are possessed of full information about the local resources in men and materials. If, in concert with the soldiers, they will use their foresight and their British common sense now, I have no doubt we shall be ready to meet any emergency when it arises.
"To sum up, there are three broad principles which we should all bear in mind. All of our people must do everything they can to help each other. No one must do anything which would be of the slightest help to the enemy. And, lastly, all have a right and duty to do everything they usefully can under responsible direction to defend their hearth and home and their native land.
"All that I have said relates to the duties of the civil population in helping to repel an invader. If it should happen that for the time being the enemy succeeded in gaining control of a locality, the plans which I have described would obviously not apply; but you may be sure that means would then be found to convey suitable instructions to those concerned. It would obviously be undesirable to give any publicity to these in advance."
That is the statement which I wish to put before your Lordships this afternoon, and that, broadly speaking, is the
394
machinery which the Government have built up to enable the civil population to play their full part. What I have said, as noble Lords will sec, supplements Beating the Invader. It does not conflict with it, but it carries the country, I think, a good deal further than the original document. In particular, I would commend to every man and woman in this country, and especially to noble Lords in this House, the words which come towards the end of the statement which I have read:
"… all have a right and duty to do everything they usefully can under responsible direction to defend their hearth and home and then-native land."
That is our right and that is our great privilege. Should the enemy come here, I think that he should be under no illusion at all; he will find the people as united, as "bloody, bold and resolute," as in Russia or in any other country in the world. But, if the best results are to be achieved, we really must not tumble over each other and get in each other's way. Each must have his task allotted to him. That is the result which the plans which I have explained to the House to-day are intended to bring about.
The noble Duke urged that there should be rehearsals of the preparations which we are making for the invasion. I would assure him that the Government are well aware of the importance of rehearsals. As he knows, many large and important rehearsals have already been held, and will continue to be held, at which the co-operation of the military and civil sides will be fully tested.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, the general body of civilians have not been brought into this yet, I think; it has applied only to people in the Services and in Civil Defence, but not to those outside, who are the ones that I want to have trained to know their job.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I can assure the noble Duke that everything that is practicable will be done. As will be realized, a rehearsal which includes the whole population is not an easy thing to arrange, and may do more harm than good by giving information away. However, the Government have the matter very much in mind. In many cases members of the civil population, or at any rate of certain sections of it, have taken part, and it is intended to continue and to extend that as much as possible.

395
The essential thing is that, as far as it is possible for him to know it, everyone should know what his part is if and when the day comes. If we can achieve that, I hope and think that we need not fear the result.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that I entirely agree with the statement which has been made on behalf of the Government, which seems to me to be a considerable advance on the leaflet to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone objected so much. I do not think, with all respect to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, that he has quite appreciated the legal point of view, which I should like to put shortly before the House—shortly, because I am sure that if it is in any respect inadequate, it will be made up for by the speech which I now learn that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will make in concluding the debate.
To an international lawyer, there is all the difference possible between a combatant and a non-combatant. By a combatant, of course, is meant, amongst other things, a man who is entitled, if he sees an enemy walking along the road, to shoot him with any weapon which he may happen to have in his hands; but, according to International Law, a combatant has to fulfil four conditions, which I will detail quite shortly. The first is that he has got to be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. The second is that he has to have a fixed, distinctive emblem, recognizable at a distance; that is to say, he cannot walk along in mufti and then shoot somebody a hundred yards away. He has to be known as an enemy by the people who are attacking him. Thirdly, he must carry arms openly. Fourthly, he and others must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. They must fight in bodies, and single individuals, not complying with all these conditions but shooting the enemy, are entitled themselves to be shot. In these circumstances if we comply with the conditions any of us are entitled to become combatants, and we shall enjoy, according to law, all the privileges to which Regular soldiers are entitled.
But there is one exception which jurists have made and which my noble friend alluded to, which I think he has a little
396
misunderstood. It is this. It occurred to the jurists who were drawing up The Hague Regulations that a country might be invaded—not necessarily an island of course—without notice, and therefore they made this exception to the rule about irregulars having the privilege due to Regular soldiers, that a levée en masse might take place on invasion, in this form and in these circumstances: "People who spontaneously take up arms to resist the enemy"—now mark the next words—"without having time to organize," and one or two other things I need not read, "shall enjoy the privileges of combatants." My noble friend quite rightly cited that, but I do not think he was quite as emphatic as I am on the words "without having time to organize," and I think a country which has had two and a half years to get ready to repel an invader would not be entitled, according to the principles of International Law, to rely upon that rule, which is Article 2 of The Hague Convention.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Has the noble and learned Viscount read the debate which took place at The Hague before Article 2 was passed—the one he is referring to? Because the debate that then took place runs exactly counter to what he is now saying.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I have read a portion of it, but I will not saddle my conscience with the statement that I read it all. It is some time ago, too, since I read it. But I have not any doubt as to the real construction of Article 2, whatever was said in the preceding speeches by people in the debate who were talking about the form which the Regulations should take. In other words, the Regulations speak for themselves. That is, I would observe, the strict law. But I do not hesitate to say that in this particular emergency we are up against some people who completely disregard all the rules of International Law, and I think my noble friend was justified in using the phrase, without himself stating of whom it should be used, that they were "murderous ruffians." I can imagine an even more forcible adjective than "murderous." And it may be just worth while to read something a little apposite on the question of what the law generally is. One of The Hague Regulations is in these terms,

397
and it is astounding to think that the German nation are bound by these terms:
"Family honour and rights, the lives of persons and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property may not be confiscated."
That is the law, and I need not tell your Lordships how far it has been observed by the German people and the German Army in this great contest.
Now, from the law as I believe it is, I conceive there is a distinction to be drawn between the combatant or the irregular who complies with the conditions I have mentioned, and such persons as peaceable citizens going about their business, or the vast number of people who are engaged in factories. They do not comply with any of these conditions, and they would be in some difficulty, I think, if they went about with a concealed weapon and shot invading people whom they happened to see. But that is not to say that they are in all circumstances to "stay put," as the phrase goes, and do nothing. Not a bit. I think the noble Lord is perfectly right in the illustrations he has given, and that if a civilian, like myself unfortunately, should see a German attacking some peaceable civilian, or making a violent entry into a house, or doing something that would be illegal according to all the laws, human and divine, then the person who sees that is entitled, notwithstanding any of the Regulations I have mentioned, to resist such an action by any means in his power. That is a thing about which I am perfectly clear. At the same time, I am equally clear that you cannot walk in mufti along the road concealing a weapon and shoot an enemy from behind a hedge or a stone wall. That is not fair play to the soldier, and that is not a justifiable act.
All I want to add now is something which might conceivably be of some use as a suggestion. I want your Lordships to realize that, according to the Rules I have mentioned, you need not wear a complete uniform. The idea that you must is a mistake. You have to wear an emblem, a fixed emblem, which can be seen some distance away, and this is what seems to me to be an important point from two aspects. I am disturbed at the thought that a large number of Home Guards, quite a considerable number
398
being agricultural labourers and people of that kind, should think it necessary, if there is a sudden invasion, to go back to their farms or their village or cottage wherever it may be, to put on their uniform, and then to go to the place where they are summoned. We all of us know what trying to run across ploughed fields comes to in exhausting an ordinary man in a very short time, and we also know that most of the Home Guards cannot wear their uniform all the time. They are engaged in work of a very dirty character, and they want to keep their uniform fairly clean.
Would it not be wise to issue distinctive armlets to every member of the Home Guard, which could be stitched on by some woman or by themselves, so that if an emergency call were made and a couple of hundred of Home Guards were being called for in a particular district, we will say a couple of miles away, they should not have to go home and get their uniform? It may mean all the difference between speedy arrival at a particular place. I am not suggesting it would always be necessary, but the sort of thing I am thinking of is air-borne troops coming down suddenly with a view to attacking a factory or some other vital spot in the country and the necessity for Home Guards to be there within a few minutes. To go home for a uniform in these circumstances would be a great pity in many cases.
The next thing I want to suggest is this. Home Guards are now being weeded out so that old gentlemen are no longer members of this force. There are many people, members of this House and elsewhere, who are not, I am afraid, of a particularly mobile nature any longer, and who therefore cannot usefully serve in the ordinary service of Home Guards; but put such people in a suitable place with a rifle, and do not call upon them to walk or run a couple of miles, and they will be just as useful with the weapon with which you supply them as the lads who joined up a year ago. Having regard to the great desire of the whole male population of this country, and a great part of the female population too, to assist in beating the invader when he comes, I do not see why the Government should not consider—and I believe they might usefully adopt—a system of having a force which could be described as the Emergency Home

399
Guard or by some other like name, under which men should give in their names, should be given a leaflet and, as far as possible, should be given weapons, if they have not got any of their own, although there are many of us who have very useful weapons in our own homes, and should be, therefore, enabled to be called upon when the actual invasion comes. There might occasionally be some drill for them, but I do not want them to be drilled. If you put large numbers of members of this House whom I see here at a window in a factory, with suitable weapons and suitable ammunition, they will be just as useful as anybody else in repelling the invader and keeping him away from the factory and from great destruction.
All I want is that these people should have a distinctive emblem, which can be made almost for nothing, in the form of an armlet fixed to some garment which they can wear at any time. If they have weapons they must carry them openly, and some of us will shoulder doublebarrelled guns, which would be exceedingly useful. They must be under the command of the Home Guard Commander. They will be part of the Home Guard itself, but they will join up only on the emergency arising, and they must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, which means they will be open combatants when they are called upon, but that they will not go sneaking along like civilians and shooting people from behind hedges unless they are in a body and under the command of a regular Commander. I have told your Lordships frankly what I think the law is. I do not believe there is any real difficulty in complying with it, and I hope the Government, who have made so admirable a statement of their policy, will see fit to consider the questions I have put forward.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I wish I could say that I was as fully in accord with the views which have fallen from the Government as the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken. It is perfectly true that the statement which fell from the Leader of the House is a distinct advance, but it leaves a great deal still uncertain and still undefined. The noble Lord who initiated this debate did extremely good
400
service in persisting in putting this Motion on the Paper and bringing it back to its place on the Order Paper to-day. What is required still is a much more decisive lead from the Government. When I had the privilege of speaking to your Lordships a week ago on the subject of the Home Guard, I felt it was impossible to expect an answer on that occasion because the House was not considering the real question, which can be summed up in two sentences: Can there really be, in a total war of this kind, anyone who is non-combatant; and, secondly, do the Government deny to any man or class of men the right to defend their homes? The Leader of the House to-day, in the statement he has read, ended with a sentence which stated that the Government did not deny that right, that they felt it was the right and duty of any man to defend his country and his home; but, in spite of making that emphatic declaration, he still qualified it by the introduction which he gave to the authoritative statement. It has been still more qualified by what the noble and learned Viscount has said with regard to the four points he considers necessary before civilians can qualify to be regarded as combatants.
I cannot help going back to the answer given by the noble Lord who speaks for the War Office in this House when, in answer to a question on January 21, he said:
"The classes to whom reference has been made are, for the purposes of International Law, civilians. If they are to be given weapons, they would have to be given combatant status."
That is still apparently the position of the Government declaration. It is really time that this fog was dispelled. Public opinion demands it, and I am quite certain that everyone wants it. The noble Lord made reference to the beginning which has been made by setting up these Invasion Committees, but, having had some experience with regard to these Committees, we are still in a state of uncertainty and doubt as to what their responsibility really is. In the first place, a certain number, a very small number, of places was selected by the authorities, and in these selected places Committees were inaugurated and set up. You can see at once the psychological effect which that has. The adjoining place, where no such Committee is set up, immediately asks the question, is it not worth while

401
defending this place, is it not worth while organizing this community to defend its own homes? Are we not to be looked after? The result of that public opinion, I think, to a certain extent forces the hand of the authorities to agree that, wherever public opinion demands it, there should be an Invasion Committee.
Now I understand the pendulum is swinging back again a little bit, and the whole thing is to be reorganized. We are blowing hot and cold. The essential point, as far as I can see it, for the Invasion Committee is to establish in the mind of every being in that community that that individual is wanted to take his or her part, and will get instruction how to do it. That is a point which I want again to emphasize. It is not so much a question of whether or not we have sufficient rifles to go round. The question is that the individuals should be trained to act co-operatively, trained to act in whatever way will be most useful to defeat the enemy. Last week I mentioned that there was considerable feeling on the part of members of the Home Guard, who had continued their obligations in that Force, from the fact that those who are volunteers and who have continued their service are now liable to fines, punishments and even imprisonment, whereas these who resigned and those who have never joined up can stand aside, look on, and even jeer at those who are doing public service. That is an unfair position, and public opinion does not want it. Public opinion wants and demands that the Government should give equal opportunity to every individual to serve, and to do his or her part.
But with the declaration which was given some weeks ago that compulsory service was to be introduced for the Home Guard immediately, there arises this attitude—"If the Government really want us they will tell us, and we will wait until we are told." The Government in their wisdom said, "We will decide on certain specified areas where compulsion will be introduced," and in the rest of the country we are left as we are. Now I do not wish to criticize those who are standing back. I think it is a very natural line to take. Unless the Government can declare themselves really in earnest, and in so doing declare that they must call upon everyone to take a share in this or that or the other service, we can and do say, and the individual will and must say,
402
"The Government are not in earnest; they do not want my services." The result is that we are unable to fill to the full the Home Guard battalions, and there are men standing by looking on. That is a position which I feel needs a far more vigorous lead than has been given even by the statement which has been read to us this evening.
The noble Lord who leads the House, in speaking of the Invasion Committees, said that we must consider that this was largely a local responsibility. That is true up to a point, but there must be a really guiding line given to these Invasion Committees, some scheme of action on which they can work, and then trust the man on the spot. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, quoted a declaration by the County Councils' Association of Scotland which I think indicated that local authorities in Scotland were alive to the position. May I quote from a circular sent out by the Civil Defence Controller of the County in which I live. It is dated February 26—that is to say a month before the Government declaration—and says:
"The Government requires the civil population to 'stay put.' This does not mean they are to stay at home and do nothing. It simply means that the civil population must not hinder operations; must not be refugees on the roads; must not try to evacuate themselves.
"Every man and woman have the right to defend themselves and their homes. Farther, every man is bound to defend his country.
"Let there be no illusions. The enemy have declared 'total war' against this country and in total war there arc no civilians.
"If every man and woman would join the Home Guards, Civil Defence Services, Women's Voluntary Service, etc., the organization to meet invasion would be simple… The Prime Minister has pointed out that the nation can only survive by blood, tears and sweat. It is not yet too late to make an effort and it must be remembered that if weapons are to be used and tasks performed it is essential to know how to use the weapons and perform the tasks."
LORD WEDGWOOD: What County is that?
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: The County is Fife. That, my Lords, is a declaration by the Controller in the County of Fife, and already arrangements have been made for training to be given by the Home Guard to the members of the Civil Defence who are keen to get that training. Therefore I welcome the further steps which have

403
been advocated to-day by the noble Duke who tabled the second Motion on this subject, that we should practise these matters, that we should learn how to use either the weapons or the tools. It is not sufficient merely to know that there are a certain number of picks and shovels; we must know how to dig the trench, how to use the weapon, how to build a field kitchen, how to cook a meal without a stove and so forth; and all these things can be learnt. There may not be enough rifles to go round, but there are countless other weapons, and we should not be afraid if they are simple and home made, as, for instance, the weapon which the noble Duke described. I have had brought to my notice on more than one occasion a very simple and effective method, a Molotov cocktail, which can be made at a very low price, and made by completely unskilled labour. It was invented by a science master at one of the schools in Fife and has stood up to any test which it has been put to in the Scottish Command or in any other exercise in which it has been tried. That is the kind of thing we should take advantage of and get to know; not to be afraid of them; and get to know also how to deal with them.
Then, as I think has been stated by the noble Lord who spoke for the Government, there are countless other ancillary services. But all of them need training, and they need guidance from the Government in order that they may be made co-operative—cooking, communications, medical and first-aid and countless other things of that kind. Let it be clear to every man and woman that they have a definite part to play and that what they do really matters. If we can give that instruction and that indication to the civil population of this country, I am quite certain that we need not be afraid that there will be any refugee problem. We need not be afraid that there will be panic, and there will be no rumours. I feel that in view of the advance which has been made by the Government to-day there is still greater advance which can be made and I implore the Government to make it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for a brief maiden speech. It is not for me to speak about the legal aspects or the military aspects of this problem. In general I would express my
404
adhesion to the point of view of the Government rather than the more violent point of view perhaps expressed by noble Lords who have criticized the Government. I think we should all be unanimous in holding that in the event of invasion every citizen should co-operate in his proper sphere in the defence of the country, and we should, I take it, be unanimous in holding that opposition to the invader should be made by disciplined forces rather than undisciplined forces. That means that there must be direction to the civil population as to the precise role which each class within it and each profession has to undertake. I trust that even in this extreme emergency language may be avoided which would preclude any recognition of that very unpopular person, the conscientious objector. I do not share his view, I think it wrong-headed, but when noble Lords say that in a war of this kind there can be no non-combatants, I do not believe that is wise language to use in relation to the population as a whole. I think that there are some who believe that their role should be non-combatant. Conscience—I think it is right that as the only member of the Episcopate present I should say this—must be respected, even in time of war, however wrong-headed the conscience and however unpopular the people whose conscience works in that way. I regard the conscientious objector as wrong-headed, frequently difficult, a real nuisance, but I must respect his conscience and I trust that may be still the law of the land.
Another thing I want to say is that in whatever detailed instructions the Government may think it wise to give to the civil population, I hope they will say something about the role in case of invasion of that profession to which I belong. I hope that what they will say will be that the clergy and ministers of religion should serve their country in an emergency of that kind in a manner analogous to the work of the Royal Corps of Chaplains rather than in that of any other department of His Majesty's Forces. I hope that, in giving direction, the special position of ministers of religion, their special need, may not be ignored; that the question may not be passed over in silence, or anything said which would have the effect of leading large numbers of the clergy to assume that the Government wished them to become combatants. I do not know whether noble Lords will agree

405
with all that I have said, but those are the two things which it was on my conscience to say
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, throughout a long career of service to this country I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, can ever have performed a more useful service than he has done this afternoon by placing this Motion on the Order Paper and speaking so eloquently upon it. Furthermore, I am convinced that it is symptomatic of the general feeling of the country that a Motion should have been put down from the Isle of Wight and a Resolution from the County of Sutherland, because anxiety as to the present position is extending from one end of the country to the other. I regret that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is not in his place, because it pains me to have to say in his absence, though with no hard feelings towards him, that the Government reply induced in me a feeling which can be described by no milder term than that of nausea because of the complete lack of imagination that it showed. The noble Viscount said somewhat pathetically that it was difficult to foresee the situation there would be in this country if invasion ever happened here, because we had had nothing resembling large-scale invasion for something approaching n thousand years. I think it would not be altogether impossible for His Majesty's Government to gather first-hand information about the methods of German invaders from tens of thousands of Allied refugees now in this country. I do not think the imagination of any normal person need be unduly strained in envisaging the situation that would then present iteslf.
The noble Viscount's main answer was confined to the re-reading of a long, verbose and in many parts meaningless pamphlet issued some time ago, which I submit is totally inadequte in instructions: Some of them are quite all right, others of course are wholly mistaken. The noble Viscount's reply very carefully avoided dealing with the main contention, as I understood it, of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that every able-bodied man, and most of them not able-bodied, ought to be ready, willing and in a position to fight if the need arises. Of course no one will suggest that a fire fighter or warden is going to leave his place if fires have broken out. No one would suggest
406
that if a raid in which gas was employed took place those whose duty it is to cleanse the streets and vehicles should divest themselves of their gas-protective clothing and look for the chance of fighting, even though fighting should be taking place or approaching their immediate neighbourhood. But I do think it was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to suggest that, whenever they were not engaged in what would be their normal functions, wardens or anyone else normally called civilians should be in a position to take up arms. I am glad that I have the noble Lord's confirmation of that.
The position is a ridiculous one, particularly in regard to the police. Being the chairman of the police committee of my county council I know that our police are to some extent armed for the purpose of preventing sabotage upon machinery or installations of importance. They are entitled to use their weapons upon saboteurs, but should the saboteurs be dressed in German uniform and come down from the skies to the number of more than six the police may not use their weapons. I do not think that is a position which can commend itself to anyone of common sense. While I entirely agree with the comment made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I think that may well be carried a little further.
Those who by reason of years or infirmity are not able actively to bear arms can be made use of not merely for the purpose of firing from a window, if arms can be provided. On the contrary, all sorts of what might be called non-combatant offices may well be filled by them. They may do cooking, attend to telephones, act as observers, and indeed discharge the functions attaching to many other positions which will readily suggest themselves. One of the most useful men in my own company cannot walk without being assisted; but he is able to drive a car, and is in every way a very valuable help to the company. I believe we possess in our own battalion, though not in my own company, the oldest Home Guard in the country, ex-Company-Sergeant-Major Taylor, of Crieff, who already has nine medals gained in fighting for His Majesty, and hopes to live long enough to gain a few for this war. He is 80 years of age, but he turns out regularly for exercises, and takes long

407
hours of duty on the telephone. In every way he is a most valuable person. Objections on the ground of age or infirmity have got to be carried to real excess before it can be held that someone is absolutely useless for purposes of Civil Defence.
I would like at this point to interpolate that I think it is greatly to be desired that some early decision should be reached as to the possibility of women being permitted to drive our motor vehicles. They could take from the shoulders of the Home Guard a tremendous amount of work, and set free many first-class men for fighting. I suggest that this should be done, and done at an early date. The noble Viscount in his reply said how desirable it was that those of the civil population who wished to assist actively should join the Home Guard, and in saying that he received the obvious approval of my noble friend Lord Croft. Well, if there is this enthusiasm for getting everybody into the Home Guard, why should it have been necessary for me, just a week ago, to put down a Motion on the Order Paper asking for compulsion for the Home Guard? The position does not seem to me to be exactly consistent. On the one hand, it seems that encouragement is being given to get everyone possible in, and on the other hand it appears that no steps are to be taken to get in those who, in a few cases because they are shirkers, but in many cases because of lack of Government direction, have not yet taken their proper places among the rest of the community. What this country is suffering from at the present time, undoubtedly, is lack of direction from above. Never has leadership been so much needed, and seldom, in many respects, has leadership been so little apparent.
The result of this lack of direction from above, particularly as regards instructions to the civil population as to their real duties, is causing the country to be divided, roughly speaking, into two sections—those who are much too complacent and those who are becoming increasingly exasperated. Those who are complacent often tell one, if one asks them why they are not taking up something more active than what they are usually doing: "But it cannot be really necessary; if it were, the Government would
408
give us orders as to what we should do." It is difficult to make some of these people believe that this is probably by far the most critical year of the war. It is difficult to get them to understand that we may have to depend upon ourselves, and not upon our Allies. Too many of them think that because we have powerful Allies they are going to do a large share of the work. From one point of view that is a totally un-British way of looking at it. We have never in the past asked other people to fight our wars for us, and we are not going to do so now. It is also a very foolish way of looking at it because we may well be reduced to the position we were in immediately after the fall of France, when we had few Allies; none, in fact, who were of much fighting value for the moment.
The great war potential of America can only very slowly come into full operation. Owing to the cutting of the Burma Road it is possible that assistance from China, in the future, may be very much more limited than would otherwise be the case. Without casting any reflection upon the splendid way in which the Russian troops have fought, there is no assurance that Russia will be an effective participator in the war in a year or even in six months' time. We all hope that she will be able to stand up to the appalling attack which will, undoubtedly, be launched upon her very shortly, but that is a hope and nothing more. There is too much empty hoping and wishful thinking in this country. Wishful thinking is the opium of a large part of the British people, and His Majesty's Government, instead of acting as policemen and suppressing the traffic, seem rather to be filling the pipe and handing it to the victim.
It is essential that these directions should be given, and given at a very early date, because of the effect on sections of the community to whom I have alluded: those who are becoming increasingly annoyed and those who are becoming rather discouraged. I do not think that discouragement has, as yet, had any serious effect. I do not wish for a moment to exaggerate the position. I do not think, nor do I wish to suggest, that successful defence of this country depends on whether we have conscription for the Home Guard or whether these instructions with regard to what to do are given immediately to the civil population. But

409
I do say that if these instructions are not given, and if we do not get powers, and put those powers into operation, to make everyone throughout the country do his or her full share, in repelling the invader should invasion come, then, although, ultimately, the issue might not be imperilled, an enormous amount of totally unnecessary bloodshed, waste, suffering, sorrow and destruction will be caused. That is why it is absolutely essential that we should get these measures brought into effect, and that we should have more direction from the Government. Already an epitaph has been chosen—no doubt unfairly—by a number of papers in this country for this Government. It is: "Too little, too late." Let the Government, on this occasion, show that the epitaph is premature and unneeded, because the country is crying out for leadership, and up to the present time has not received it.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and I do so more wholeheartedly now having heard the contents of some of those documents from which he quoted. I had never seen or heard of them before. I confess that they amused me for the moment, but already I have a chilly feeling of fear creeping over me which I am afraid will increase during the night. Anything more dreadful than the sentiments there expressed I have never heard. I feel that I would like to enlist in the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield's "Corps of the Exasperated," after having heard the reply from the Government to-day. The whole point of the Motion was missed. The noble Viscount who replied used the expression: "They can join the Home Guard." They can do this. They can do that. It is not a question of "can." Those who do not come forward must be made to do so. As my noble friend Lord Mansfield pointed out, it is not a question of people filling up roads or putting out fires. That is exactly what the Pioneer Corps crossed to France to do. Some battalions of the Pioneer Corps, I believe, had only one-third of their number armed. Yet these men wore put into the front line when the crisis came, and they did very good work. The men must all have the necessary training to take their place in the line in the last resort.
410
When I decided to make some remarks to-day in a debate dealing with legal points, I felt very much as I did the first time that I was ordered to take a ship into uncharted coral waters. On that occasion I took what precautions I could to avoid running on any rock, and I have done so this time. I have obtained from a legal friend, an acknowledged authority on International Law, some advice, and he has sent me a copy of a book of which he is the author, with certain paragraphs marked. I am, however, spared from having to go into those questions, because we have already had the law expounded to us by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. That it is the law of our land that anybody can be called on and ordered to resist invasion has already been put beyond doubt, and International Law on the subject has already been quoted. It is quite clear to me, so far as I as an ordinary layman can understand this book, and from what I have heard to-day, that it is every man's duty if called upon to take part in resisting an invasion. It is fully recognized in International Law, but the levée en masse has never been recognized by the German military authorities. Their behaviour in two wars in the countries which they have invaded has made it quite clear that at any rate they are consistent on that point!
It is perfectly clear that, when the time comes, the manhood of this nation will resist any invader. I should like to tell you a story which you must all have heard, but which, I think, shows the sentiment at the moment. An aeroplane crashed on a hillside some distance from a Home Guard post. The Home Guard rushed up the hill and, when they got to the burning plane, they saw a countryman there chewing a straw and leaning on his pitchfork. They shouted "Has anybody got away?", and he answered "There was one come out with his clothes on fire, but I forked him in again." That is exactly what will happen; they will do that as a matter of course. With due respect to the noble and learned Lords who are here, I think that any talk about International Law or about the law of the land falls quite fiat in these circumstances. In any case, you can put yourself right with the law, and one point in the Government's statement which I like is that there is going to be a "second class" in the

411
Home Guard, because that is what every man who is not in the first line of the Home Guard should be conscribed into. He could be conscribed and trained, and he could then return to his work, and he will be a belligerent. If you do not do that—if you do not organize these men and put them into this Force and legalize their position—you will lay our population open to frightful reprisals on the part of the invader when they exercise their undoubted right to resist him with all the power they have.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone quoted an Order under the Emergency Powers Regulations which made a nice distinction between ordering people to dig a trench and their taking part in the combatant work of defending that trench. The noble Viscount who replied for the Government was rather indignant about the suggestion that people filling up a shell hole should stop to defend it. If these men stopped their work, however, and ran along the road in front of the Germans, other people would join them, and there would soon be a big crowd running away from the Germans, leading to that congestion of the roads which is just what we do not want. I suggest that it is time that we faced this matter and gave the order once and for all that every male of military age belongs to the Home Guard, and should be regarded as doing so, and trained in the use of arms. The War Office, I suggest, confuse arms with training when they say "We cannot do that, because we have not the arms." Let me take a naval simile. Every ship goes to sea with a certain number of rifles on board. Every sailor and stoker has not a rifle, but they are all put through an annual rifle course. All those who are performing civil duties should know that they are soldiers and may have in the last resort to perform military duties when their civil duties collapse.
I was told on Saturday last by the Colonel of a Home Guard battalion in a populous borough in London that, after the last Order on the subject, fifty men of the local Civil Defence Force made arrangements to join his battalion as volunteers. At the last moment, when their papers were ready to be signed, the hidden hand of the local Civil Defence authority stepped in, and not one of those men was allowed to join. I have had a letter from Scotland on the subject; it
412
arrived to-day. I cannot understand—and I have the advantage of being able to take an impartial view—why Scotland always leaves England behind along the road of common sense. Perhaps I may quote this letter, because it supports the statements which have been made by noble lords who come from north of the Tweed:
"We are woefully short of men here, and in case of invasion would be quite unable to carry out the role which we are told off to do."
My correspondent goes on to say that all the Civil Defence Services are full, and are quite efficient as far as they go.
He points out that former officers and N.C.O's naturally joined the Civil Defence Services when they were formed, because they were formed before the war and were the only way in which they could then serve their country; but now they are forbidden to join the Home Guard. He says:
"The heads of these Services flatly refuse to allow their personnel to be trained in the Home Guard; and, as an instance of the mentality of some of these heads of departments, at a conference recently the chief constable of a neighbouring county said that if the enemy approached his district, his special constables who had rifles would throw them away and go in to keep the population quiet. He further announced that he did not expect any of the men in the Civil Defence Force to go into the Home Guard, because they looked down upon it."
That may be a local feeling, but I believe that all over the country there is a certain friction and jealousy on the part of the Civil Defence authorities. They are not inclined to let their men join the Home Guard. It would be very simple to con-scribe the men, put them into the Home Guard and then let them do their civil duties, reverting to their Home Guard duties when they could no longer carry out their civil duties or when the military need was greater. The Prime Minister said that every village and every town and city was going to be defended. I have no doubt that it will be defended to the best of our ability, but it would be far better done if everybody knew how to use a rifle and was prepared to take his part and looked on it as his duty to do so.
I hope that my noble friend will carry this Motion to a Division. In every debate in this House the feeling on the part of your Lordships has been quite unmistakable, yet we have been put off with state

413
ments about not having enough arms. In no case have I heard a Government reply which fulfilled the expectations of the mover of the Motion. I submit with due deference that it can only redound to the credit of your Lordships' House if it now takes a strong lead in this matter of preparing the mind of the nation to resolve that every possible step to resist invasion shall be taken, and that it will be carried through if necessary to the death. That would not be in opposition to the Government; I suggest that it would strengthen the hand of those members of the Government who want to do this, but who are kept back by other members who, for some reason known to themselves, are either afraid or disinclined to use the powers which the country has conferred on the Government in the hope and expectation that they would be used.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I shall detain you for a very few minutes only, but I have been deeply disturbed by what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said; in particular, I was disturbed at the answer which he received from three separate men in a certain uniform that they were non-combatants and were not supposed to fight in case of invasion. As has been stated by the Leader of the House and also by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, the first duty of every man and woman in this country is to carry out the work for which they have been selected and trained. That is to say, nobody expects the Civil Defence workers or A.R.P. workers to leave their posts of duty where they are first required; but when invasion comes it will not come in accordance with a concerted plan, it will not be stabilized. A sudden situation, will arise, and these sudden situations must be coped with by the men on the spot. Let us suppose that a Civil Defence post is attacked by parachutists, that the barrier on a road manned by the Home Guard is being attacked at heavy odds, and that many of these Home Guards are killed and their rifles are tying there. Surely in those circumstances the nearest able-bodied men, whether Civil Defence workers or anything else, should rush to that barrier and take the places of the Home Guard. I have only risen to ask the Government to give us a lead and to give us a clear-cut statement that it is the duty of every able-bodied man and citizen of these islands to fight to resist an invasion, should occasion arise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Mottistone has every reason to feel that the debate which he opened has developed and has become more and more important, and I agree with what was said just now by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that he has rendered a real service to the country. And I say with all sincerity that I for one, and I am sure the whole Government, are grateful to him. He pointed out, and I think he pointed out with truth, that there was a widespread impression in the country that the role of the civilian, the purely private civilian, if invasion came, was conceived of as a purely negative role—taking cover, keeping out of the way, and so on. I will not discuss whether that impression was justified. A good deal might be said on the question as to what is really meant by static defence, staying put. But at any rate, if that has been the impression, this debate has done a great deal to clear it away. Anybody who really paid attention to the statement made by the Leader of the House will know that that statement did completely clear that impression away. It was the main object of the statement.
I hope the noble Earl (Lord Mansfield) will forgive me if I observe on this point that, feeling as he does so keenly about recruitment for the Home Guard, and so deeply and sincerely the anxieties which we all have for the proper protection of the country if invasion comes, he really did the Leader of the House a very great injustice—quite unconsciously, I know. He informed us in his speech just now that the greater part of the speech of the Leader of the House was the reading out of a long, verbose and largely meaningless pamphlet which was issued some months ago. I am afraid the noble Earl had not been attending to it. It was quite obvious to everybody who was attending that the Leader of the House was making an entirely new statement, a statement that had never appeared at all until to-day. It was made in the House of Commons, and now here, and anybody who can realty imagine that that was nothing more than a re-hash of what was said some months ago is doing a very great injustice, though not intentionally, to those responsible for it.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: In that case I will certainly withdraw the state

415
ment that it was a repetition of something issued a few months ago. I know it is not the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne's, fault—he is merely acting as the mouthpiece of the Government in speaking to his brief—but I am afraid that the rest of it still merits the description I gave of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a great thing to know that the matter which is now being commented on is, as the noble Earl appreciates, not something that occurred three months ago. Probably under the impression that that was its character, he did not give it the close attention that I am sure he will give to it when he has the opportunity of reading it in print.
Now, as sometimes happens in some of our most important debates, there has been a tendency to shift a little from the actual topic that was raised by my noble and gallant friend to another matter. The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, for example, in his very powerful speech, was really urging that there should be conscription for the Home Guard. That was the substance of what he was saying, though he made some very pointed remarks on this subject too. Now that is not the subject of this debate; and, while it is right that speeches should be made of wide range, we had better realize what is the subject which is actually being raised. The question which my noble friend Lord Mottistone is raising is, what should be the role of the ordinary civilian man or woman in the event of invasion; and, however much you increase the recruitment for the Home Guard or for other Services, there will always be this question. And there are many of us in this House—I can see some noble Lords here now—to whom the question is a matter of acute personal importance, "What ought I to do if in my own village this thing suddenly happened, because I want to play my proper part?"
I would venture first of all to make this observation with which Lord Cork will agree, but perhaps not everybody else. I really do not think—lawyer as I am—that the answer to that question as a practical matter is to be determined by scrutinizing law books, whether it be Municipal Law or International Law. I do not forget that my noble friend who moved the Motion is a Chairman of Quarter Sessions—I suppose I ought to
416
refer to him as my noble, gallant and learned friend; but all I can say is that I prefer his gallantry: not because I think his law is bad, but because I think that with this subject these legal questions have extremely little to do. As far as I can see, I would accept the propositions which were so very clearly stated to the House by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham. But, after all, are you really going to improve the defence of this country and the resistance of this country to the invader by lecturing the ordinary citizen as to what is his legal right or his legal duty? I think it is perfectly absurd. I am confident, as indeed I think one noble Lord justly said, that when this situation arises, and if it arises anywhere, you will find there will be an irresistible impulse on the part of all stout-hearted people to do whatever they can that is active, forcible and effective to defeat the foe, and nobody will go and consult his solicitor as to whether there is or is not a Common Law misdemeanour for which he might be liable to two years' imprisonment for not doing his duty. And I think it is equally irrelevant to the point to talk about International Law.
As my noble friend Lord Cork said, what a topic to discourse about in connexion with a possible German invasion! When there is the prospect of things happening that we know have happened in Holland, in Belgium, in Poland and in France, it seems to me perfectly fantastic to discuss for a moment matters, as is said, "from the point of view of International Law." Fancy greeting a German parachutist with a standard work on that subject and reading out to him what the particular provisions are as to the position of civilians! Your Lordships may recall that that very biting legal authority, Lord Young, once met Mr. Alfred Austin when Mr. Austin was Poet Laureate, and Lord Young kindly inquired of him whether he had been writing any poetry lately. Mr. Austin replied with a laugh, "I have been tossing off a few little things just to keep the wolf from the door," and Lord Young said, "Oh, do you read your poems to the wolf?" Anybody who proceeds to recite the provisions of The Hague Convention in order to prove what people may or may not do in facing bloodthirsty ruffians who endeavour to invade this island is not necessarily bowling on the wicket.

417
I would further point out this, that while these international provisions lay down what the enemy ought to respect provided you are wearing a significant dress, provided you are acting openly, provided you are organized, and all the vest of it, that is a very different thing from saying that every English man—or English woman—is a criminal because he thinks it is his duty to defend his hearth and home, and everybody else's home, when the occasion arises. International Law does not define the crimes which the people of these islands will commit in such circumstances. They will run some risks, but they will run risks anyhow. Is there anybody who believes for a moment that, if we have a German invasion, it is going to be conducted with strict regard to international rules, and that we have only to behave strictly within the rules in order to be safe? I do not think that is going to be the reaction of the British people at all, and I am very glad it is not. This has got to be decided on practical lines of good sense, taking advantage of the fact that there is no race in the world which has got a greater amount of initiative and elementary courage than the men and women of this island.
What is it that this new statement says? It has not been fairly treated because the speeches to which I have listened, which criticized, as is quite right, because it helps to stimulate activity, have called for things to be said and taught which are in this very statement that has been made to the House. For instance, I heard an observation made that it was a miserable attitude to take up—a most unhappy admonition to give—to tell people to "stay put." "Stay put" does not mean to creep under the table. It means "Don't run away." It is addressed to the greatest of all dangers which experience has shown may overcome a populace if there is a German invasion, and that is a helter-skelter upon the roads. The admonition is: "Don't surrender to the temptation, if it be a temptation, to make your way by the roads away from the place that is being attacked. Stay, because it is only by keeping the roads clear that it is possible for those who are, after all, primarily trained and principally armed to resist and drive back the invader, can get at him." Nobody who has read the series of books describing the lamentable spectacle on the roads of Belgium and France
418
will be likely to reproach the Government because they are teaching the people of this country, by every means in their power, to stay where they are until they are told to move. "Don't take to your heels and bring upon yourselves and the rest of your countrymen the frightful dangers which that process would involve."
I agree—I speak quite frankly and fairly—that the phrase "Stay put" might be, and in some places has been, explained as, "Remain passive, be negative, do nothing; thank God you are a civilian and not a fighting man, or whatever it may be." One of the main objects of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Government to-day is to show that that is not at all the advice or the intention which we desire to emphasize. Let me read two or three words. If the document is read sentence by sentence noble Lords will not feel that it is merely a rehash. This is the thing that matters, and this is what more than one noble Lord has said:
"'…stand firm' and keep off the roads so as to avoid those refugee movements which proved so disastrous in the Battle of France."
That is the first essential.
"But this does not mean that the civil population are expected to adopt a purely passive role. On the contrary, the Government has always expected that the people of these islands will offer a united opposition to an invader, and that every citizen——"
that is exactly what Lord Mottistone insisted on—
"will regard it as his duty to hinder and frustrate the enemy by every means which ingenuity can devise and common sense suggest."
Does anybody consider, after that, there is any doubt as to the advice given by the Government if, perchance, some stranger drops from a parachute on to his back lawn? I do not think it is open to any doubt at all.
It sounds very heroic to tell everybody to go in and win, and no doubt it makes a difference whether you are provided with a gun or not, but it is a very cheap form of amusement to recommend other people to be so terribly brave in circumstances which will try their spirit. But the spirit of the country is right, I feel convinced. 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

419
common sense can suggest, for the purpose of repelling the invader"—are not to be dismissed as just meaningless verbiage. They seem to me very firm and sensible words. All have the right and the duty—that was the point Lord Mottistone was making—to do everything they usefully can, under responsible direction, "to defend their hearth and home and their native land." Why defend only your own hearth? someone asked. Well defend your native land. That is wide enough even for the most ambitious heart. I feel that the document has not been fairly dealt with if it is not recognized that it completely corrects whatever impression there was that fighting really was the affair of soldiers and bloody-minded people of that sort, but the rest of us must lie low and say nothing.
Then it was said—and there is very much importance in this point—"Ah, but what about the Police and the Civil Defence Services and other bodies of that sort—are they not being kept apart as a segregated body? Are they not being told, 'You have only got your own roles to fulfil, which are not in this general skirmish'?" Not at all. I have informed myself within the last few minutes, and I find that the actual position is that while these people are on duty, while the policeman is discharging his duty under his superior officer, whatever that may mean—I do not put any limit to it—or while the fire extinguisher is discharging his duty, it is absolutely necessary to treat them as being charged with that duty. That is the very reason for which they have been organized, and if that duty is not discharged it will be the worse for all of us. But when they 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.
There was another point. It was said by the noble Earl—I hope he will not feel I am referring to him too much—that there really were hosts of things which people ought to be asked to do, and he gave an example of one or two. The actual one that caught my attention was cooking. Really the noble Earl was not able to attend very closely to the statement made, for I notice that after dealing with the position of those who have suf
420
ficient activity to be able to do some form of fighting, the statement went on to deal with the other part of the population which could hardly be expected to do fighting—and there are lots of men and women of this kind—and in regard to them it said that there are countless ways in which the help of civilians will be needed. It referred to the importance of the Invasion Committees, and their work of making arrangements, for example in cooking and distributing food, and a whole series of things which I need not deal with now.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me? The words I used were an expansion of the suggestions made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, as to what might be done by the less competent section of the Home Guard, not by civilians.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not quite understand it. It may be that it is a better plan, but at any rate what I wanted to make clear was that this statement is a statement which addresses itself directly, first, to the impression, if there be one, that all the civilian has to do is to lie quiet; secondly, in the case of the civilian who though he be a civilian can fight, it encourages him to do the best he can; and thirdly, it addresses that body of civilians—and it may be, as the noble Earl says, perhaps some section of the Home Guard—who can do a variety of things of which there is a long list here, instead of considering themselves directly charged with repelling the invader by weapons.
That brings me to the Invasion Committees. I have the impression from this debate that the Invasion Committees are operating very well in a considerable part of the country, but that there are other places where they are very much more backward. One of the objects of this statement was to insist that the Invasion Committees must be set up and got into active work in every part of the country where it was reasonable to prepare against invasion. I believe in Lord Mottistone's part of the country the Invasion Committees are operating already most effectively. There are other parts of the country, I dare say, where it is not so, but the object of this document was to see that it was understood that everywhere these Invasion Committees, which consist both of

421
the civil and the military authorities and which will be different in the villages from what they may be in the towns, are really at once turned to the necessary work, as far as it has not been done already, of securing that there is this very organization, in regard to which I think we are all at one, for the purpose of giving these supplementary services connected with the resistance of invasion. I know it is very easy to say—I have often said it in another place in criticizing a Government —"Well, do more, or do it more quickly, or more clearly, or more effectively." I am very far from saying that this is necessarily the last word, but I do most respectfully protest against the idea, as the result of the debate in this House, that this statement made from the Front Bench by my noble friend, and given in the other House by Sir John Anderson, is not a most definite, concrete and valuable contribution to both the better understanding and the more effective carrying out of this very matter.
Really, my Lords, I get a shade impatient when I hear some critics talk as though there was a Government in this country which was lolling on its back, quite oblivious of the dangers which are approaching us, incapable of mastering what happened in France and Belgium, and engaged in what really would be a self-sacrificing indolence, because its members would be the people who would immediately suffer if this force of invasion fell upon us. I do not profess myself to know all the arrangements that have been made, and I have been warned by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that there are matters which it would not be right to state, which are in train and are ready, because, alter all, if it is stated here it is stated to the enemy outside; but I do ask the House to reflect whether it is quite fair to treat those who have worked so hard to present the case as they see it, and as they wish to deal with it, as though they had been indolent, idle and indifferent to what are very obvious facts.
I can see only one alternative to the victory for which we are all striving, and that is destruction. There is no third course. It is a terrible fact. In a way it tightens people's sinews and it calms their nerves to know that they have not to spend their time choosing between one method and another, but that there is
422
only one method for them, that there is no other way out; and I venture to say that our object as a Government as a whole is to do everything we can to enable the faithful, brave-hearted people of this island, who would be able to face this as any other danger or anxiety, to make the best use in a really organized way of that determination, which lies at the bottom of every British heart if the invader comes, to drive him into the sea.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, after the eloquent, robust and patriotic speech of the Lord Chancellor, all one can say is that one rejoices to have heard it. It has swept out of the way the manifold misapprehensions to which I referred when I introduced my Motion, and all I can say is, speaking as a man determined to see this doctrine prevail, that the gospel according to St. Simon is good enough for me. It is indeed. But if we were in France someone, I am sure, would jump up and say: "I move that the Lord Chancellor's speech be placarded." That is what I want to be done to it. There are two points in the statement made by the Leader of the House, and so ably defended by the Lord Chancellor, which seem to indicate that there does come peeping out some timidity. The citizen wants to know what he has to do. Is he to hit the man over the head, or, in the more legal language of previous Lord Chancellors, overcome the enemy? No, he has to hinder him and frustrate him. I am quite sure there are some people who will misunderstand that phrase, who will not quite know what you mean when you say, "hinder and frustrate." Reading this document one might conclude that he was being told "Whatever you do, do not hurt the invader; you must be ladylike and gentle."
We must not forget, however, that the Lord Chancellor has made it abundantly clear that it is all nonsense about some of the citizens being non-combatants (and leaving all the fighting to the bloody-minded soldier. This document stands, and I believe we are all as one, except perhaps the right reverend Prelate, that it is the Englishman's duty to go for the enemy. The right reverend Prelate is not quite so sure of that. I am not certain that he was present when I read to the House the passage which The Times was good enough to send me from the

423
coroner's verdict on the death of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson. I wonder would he say that some of the citizens should refuse to engage a murderer?
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: May I explain? I entirely accept the doctrine that it is the duty of Englishmen to defend their country. I am not a pacifist, I dislike them very much, and if it were not for my cloth I trust I should be a combatant. But that does not mean that I do not think conscience should be respected and it does not mean that I think it is the duty of the clergy to engage as combatants.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Except for conscientious objectors and clergymen, you do agree, so we are all as one. I was going to say that timidity comes peeping out at the very end of this document. It looked as if it was going to end so well, to say it is your duty to defend your own homes, but then there was some phrase about "under proper direction." May I beg my noble friend the Leader of the House to see to it that that curious phrase is eliminated, because in the cases we are considering of small infiltrations, every man has to decide for himself and act quickly. He cannot wait for proper directions. There is one other small point, but it is rather important. I had the greatest difficulty in getting this particular document. My private secretary went to all sorts of post offices and could not get one, and finally I got one from the Ministry of Information. I now gather that it is out of print. I know it is a great deal to ask the Government to withdraw a pamphlet, but I would make the respectful suggestion that no great harm would be done and that it would be a saving of money and paper not to reprint a document which is superseded. Rejoicing in the wonderful words which we have heard from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I of course will follow my noble friend Lord Mottistone and not proceed with the Resolution which stands in my name. All I would like to say is that if this plan is now being put into effect it is a pity it was not done earlier. Perhaps it is no good talking about the past, but we have been threatened with invasion for three years and it would have been better
424
if we had done these things rather earlier. I beg leave to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.

TERRITORIAL ARMY AND SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE EMBODIED SERVICE.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name. I think the last war provides a precedent for counting twofold embodied service for the purpose described in my question.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the counting of embodied service during the present war as twofold, in computing the service required for the award of the Efficiency Decoration and the Efficiency Medal to officers and men of the Territorial Army and to other ranks of the Supplementary Reserve.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform the noble Earl that two Army Orders have been issued dated February 17, 1942, embodying the decisions on this matter. The first Army Order authorizes embodied service rendered during the present war by warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Army and of the Supplementary Reserve who were serving in the Territorial Army (including the Territorial Army Reserve) and Supplementary Reserve Categories A and B on September 2, 1939, and who were embodied or called out for service under Army Order 158 of 1939, to reckon twofold as qualifying service towards the Efficiency Medal and clasps thereto.
The second Army Order authorizes embodied commissioned service rendered during the war by an officer who was serving in the Territorial Army (including the Territorial Army Reseve) on September 2, 1939, and who has been, or may be, embodied under Army Order 159 of 1939 to reckon twofold as qualifying service towards the award of the Efficiency Decoration. In cases where a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer

425
or man who was serving in the Territorial Army (including the Territorial Army Reserve) or in the Supplementary Reserve Categories A or B, and who was embodied or called out for service under Army Order 158 of 1939, is subsequently granted a Commission in the Territorial Army his embodied service in the ranks during the war will reckon as full (but not double) qualifying service for the award of the Efficiency Decoration.

WOOL RESERVE.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Barnby, who has been called away for Home Guard duties, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if the further information promised in the reply given on December 10th, 1941, to question on Command Paper No. 6,242 is now available, and if not when may it be expected.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of my noble friend Lord Portal, the Minister of Works and Buildings. The formal agreement is expected to be signed to-day to implement the arrangement referred to in my noble friend's previous answer. The delay in signing it is partly due to the fact that the scope of the arrangement has been extended to cover the sale to the United States Government of further supplies of Australian wool to be shipped up to April 30th next. Meanwhile shipments of wool from Australia to the U.S.A. have been continuing.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. Report from the Refreshment Sub-committee.
The Earl of Lucan (Chairman of the Sub-Committee) moved the adoption of the Report of the Refreshment Sub-Committee, which was agreed to.
2. Application of coal porters for rise in salary.
An application from the coal porters for a rise in salary was laid before the Committee. The Clerk of the Parliaments reported that he
426
was in communication with the Treasury on the question of the porters being taken on to the establishment. The Committee expressed approval of the proposal.
The framing of a scheme for establishment and the remuneration of the coal porters was referred to the Lord Chairman, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Onslow, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, in moving that the Report be agreed to, there is one item to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The Report of the Refreshment Sub-Committee recommends that Peers should be asked to limit the number of their guests to two on days on which the House sits for legislative business. That has been thought advisable in view of the congestion in the dining room. The long table in the Peers' tea room will be prepared for luncheon for any Peers not entertaining guests, in addition to the tables already in use.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.