'DISARMED.'

HL Deb 24 March 1942 vol 122 cc387-424

"'When 17-years old Home Guard Roland Parry, of Wooperton Street, Weymouth, an 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 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. 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; 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 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. 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.