Lords Sitting of 17 November 1942

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

SUPREME COURT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the amendment of the enactments relating to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland to correspond with alterations in County Court jurisdiction made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and to make further provision as respects rules and orders relating to the said Supreme Court; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion which stands in my name. This is a Sessional Order. I do not think it requires any explanation; it explains itself. It has been put on the Paper at the request of the Minister of Information. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That—
"Where it is intended to make application for a Private Bill a draft of the notices relating to the Bill proposed to be published in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders 8 and 9 shall twenty-one days at least before the 4th day of December be deposited at the office of the Ministry of Information.
"If it appears to the Minister of Information that the publication of such notices in accordance with those Orders would be contrary to the national interest he shall not later than seven days before the said date so notify the Promoters of the Bill and the Chairman of Committees and in that case those notices shall not be published and in lieu thereof such notices of the proposed
40
Bill shall be published within such time and in such manner as the Chairman of Committees may direct.
"Where the Minister does not issue any such notification the notices, as, published, shall not differ from the draft deposited with him except so far as he by general or special direction may allow.
"In the case of a Bill for which the Petition is deposited or proposed to be deposited by leave of the House after the 27th day of November the provisions of this Order shall apply subject to the following modification, that is to say, for the reference to the 4th day of December there shall be substituted a reference to the date on which the Petition for the Bill is deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Crewe,

E. Stanhope,

E. Lucan,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Plymouth,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Halifax,

V. Mersey,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Caldecote,

V. Maugham,

L. Cecil (V. Cranborne),

L. Templemore,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. Stanmore,

L. Strathcona and Mount Royal,

L. Redesdale,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

41

L. Moyne,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Addison,

L. Nathan.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Leven and Melville,

E. Malmesbury,

E. Stanhope,

E. Lucan,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Stafford,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Mersey,

V. Ullswater,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Maugham,

L. Clinton,

L. Stiabolgi,

L. Cecil (V. Cranborne),

L. Ellenborough,

L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam),

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. O'Hagan,

L. Stanmore,

L. Merthyr,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston,

L. Jessel,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Milne,

L. Addison,

L. Winster,

L. Latham.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
All Petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Norfolk,

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Shrewsbury,

E. Perth,

E. Stanhope,

E. Lucan,

E. Strafford,

E. Plymouth,

E. Iveagh,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Mersey,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Caldecote,

V. Maugham.

L. Strabolgi,

L. Cecil (V. Cranborne),

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. O'Hagan,

L. Stanmore,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Faringdon,

L. Meston,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Elton,

L. Rushcliffe,

L. Addison,

L. Denham,

L. Kenilworth,

L. Winster,

L. Latham.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

43

D. Norfolk,

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Zetland,

M. Crewe,

E. Huntingdon,

E. Shaftesbury,

E. Perth,

E. Dartmouth,

E. Stanhope,

E. Ilchester,

E. De La Warr,

E. Clarendon,

E. Lucan,

E. Bradford,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Strafford,

E. Ancaster,

E. Cromer,

E. Plymouth,

E. Iveagh,

E. Baldwin of Bewdley,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Halifax,

V. Allendale,

V. Mersey,

V. FitzAlan of Derwent,

V. Ullswater,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Caldecote,

V. Maugham,

L. Cecil (V. Cranborne),

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. Rushcliffe,

L. Hylton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Meston,

L. Jessel,

L. Atkin,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Macmillan,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Addison,

L. Southwood.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

INDIA AND BURMA ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the constitution of the Com-
44
mittee as appearing on the Paper, with the addition of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all drafts of Orders laid before Parliament under Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, or Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, in the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Devonshire,

V. Goschen,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Stanmore,

L. Hardinge of Penshurst,

L. Faringdon,

L. Meston,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Hutchison of Montrose,

L. Hailey.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether alterations in the procedure of this House are advisable in the existing circumstances, and, if so, whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered for that purpose, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Lucan,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Ullswater,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Cecil (V. Cranborne),

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. Stanmore,

L. Marley,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Moyne,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Addison.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE ON ESTATE BILLS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Committee on Estate Bills be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Hailsham,

V. Maugham,

L. Romer.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE HOME GUARD.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the immediate necessity for increasing the total strength of the Home Guard and to other matters connected with that force; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the first part of the Motion which stands in my name raises a very clear and simple issue. That is the immediate necessity for increasing the total strength of the Home Guard. When first formed the Home Guard were recruited according to population and not in accordance with the local tactical necessities, which were then barely known. This was to some extent rectified when compulsory enrolment was introduced, but, even so, the advantage of compulsion in some districts was curtailed owing to recruitment being limited by the ceiling. That ceiling in the districts was not governed so much by tactical considerations but by the total number of Home Guard authorized, a number which, we were told by the Prime Minister some fortnight or three weeks ago in another place, reached a figure of from 1,500,000 to 1,750,000.
In some of the large cities, it may be die case that the numbers of the Home Guard already enrolled and trained may suffice. I do not know, but I do know that in certain country districts, especially in Scotland, the numbers of Home Guard available for defence are insufficient for the tactical roles laid down for them, and these require immediate increase. As the Home Guard have developed, the importance of their role has so increased that each unit is expected to be self-supporting as regards auxiliary services, non-
46
combatant services; consequently more non-combatants, such as signallers, dispatch-riders and runners, intelligence personnel, first-aid workers, etc., are now required, and this proportion in the scattered country districts rises as high as 10 per cent., or over, of the total local ceiling. All these non-combatants have to be found within the ceiling permitted by the total number of the Home Guard. If the total ceiling, therefore, of the Home Guard is to-day say, 1,500,000 to 1,750,000, then from 150,000 to 175,000 of these men are employed on so-called non-combatant duties, and they are not, generally speaking, available for active fighting, though probably each one has been trained in the use of a rifle or shotgun or, possibly, in throwing a grenade. As I see the position, members of the Home Guard fill varying military roles. Obviously, they are not called upon to perform exactly the same military role in the big cities as in the country districts, or in the smaller towns and villages which merge into the country districts. At the time the Home Guard were formed, and up till quite recently, local units, in many instances, were meant in the event of invasion to take the first shock of the enemy's attack, and subsequently to supplement Regular units where these exist. A very different situation, however, has now arisen. As soon as the so-called Second Front in Europe was decided upon, and a larger number of troops sent to the Middle East and elsewhere, obviously, with the denudation, and the probable early further denudation, of the Forces held in this country, the Home Guard had assumed an even more important role than they held when first formed, so far as home defence is concerned.
For that reason, and for the reasons which I have previously given, I strongly urge the Government to raise the total strength or the total ceiling of the Home Guard, so as to enable the local ceilings to be raised to the extent necessary to carry out the tactical roles laid down for the Home Guard in country and other districts. I further recommend that the necessary men should be enrolled on a compulsory basis, and that they should be trained, armed and equipped as soon as possible. It may be suggested that these men are not available; that they have already been swallowed up either in the Home Guard or in local Civil Defence

47
units. I have no hesitation in differing from that view. In the first place, there are numbers of men of Home Guard age who have still not been enrolled either in the Home Guard or in Civil Defence units. Secondly, there is a certain proportion of men in the Civil Defence units who might well be enrolled in the Home Guard, but who are retained at present wholly in Civil Defence units. I know of districts where this is the case, and where it is not unusual for there to be three or four times as many men in the Civil Defence units—fire guards, wardens, and so on—as in the local Home Guard.
I admit that it is difficult to lay down the exact proportions of men who should be in the Home Guard and the Civil Defence units in any district, but I believe that that question ought to be settled as quickly as possible, and I would submit a recommendation to the Government by which I believe that it could be settled. I suggest that in each area a military representative should meet with a representative of the Regional Commissioner to consider this question in each district of the area, and to try to come to some conclusion upon it. Where there is any difference of opinion between the two, the question should be remitted to higher arbiters in the shape of the Regional Commissioner himself and the higher military representative in the area, for consideration and decision. I believe that in many districts there would be very little difficulty in arriving at a just distribution, and, where difficulty did exist, we might hope that with a very small amount of goodwill an adjustment could be made.
In this connexion, I also wish to emphasize my view that, except in special cases in districts where conditions lend themselves to the practice, the duties and training of the Home Guard should not be mixed up with the duties and training of the Civil Defence Services. I know that this matter was discussed in the House not long ago, and I do not intend to devote a long time to it, nor do I wish to make it in any way a controversial question; but, when dealing with the question of the Home Guard as a whole, I think it is impossible not to say something on this point. If the Home Guard are to be properly trained for their role of military defence, then, with the limited time necessarily available to them, and having
48
regard to the prescribed number of hours of drills and attendances, they must, in my opinion and judging by what I have seen, devote the whole of their time to their training as Home Guardsmen. Their duties are becoming more onerous and more important every day, and it is essential that they should be thoroughly trained in them to the utmost possible extent. The same applies very largely to the Civil Defence Services also.
I do not rule out the desirability of the Home Guard having a knowledge of fire-fighting, so far as dealing with incendiary bombs and the simpler forms of dealing with fires generally are concerned, and in fact those things come into their ordinary training. I do not rule out the advantage of the male members of the Civil Defence units being made acquainted with the rudiments of the handling of a rifle and the throwing of Mills grenades and Molotov bombs. I hope that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will feel, therefore, that I am not entirely out of sympathy with all that he has urged in this House during the last two or three months. For ail practical purposes, however, I believe it is essential and better for the country that each branch of defence should be fully trained in its own duties rather than partially in its own and partially in those of another branch. I should also like to emphasize that the large majority of the members of the Home Guard, and many of those engaged in the Civil Defence Services, are already fully employed in civil occupations and cannot afford to devote more time to becoming proficient both as Home Guardsmen and as fire guards, wardens, or members of one of the other Civil Defence Services.
Having urged the need for an increase in the total number of Home Guard, and having given my reasons for that as briefly as I could, let me now pass to the second part of my Motion, which deals with other matters connected with the Home Guard. The first point that I wish to raise is the provision of arms and ammunition for the Home Guard. I do not wish to say anything on this point which may help the enemy, and I do not wish to belittle what has already been accomplished in this respect having regard to the very large calls which have been made upon armaments, munitions and equipment for our Fighting Services here and overseas and for supply to Russia. Never-

49
theless, I do wish to urge that the Home Guard should be more heavily armed and munitioned as and when circumstances permit. I have attended several invasion exercises in the last two or three months, and I have been particularly struck in these exercises by the superiority which the Regular Forces possess in armaments, and especially in heavy armaments, in comparison with the Home Guard. However well sited their defences may be, in these circumstances the Home Guard cannot prove as effective in defence as they should be, and I should like—certainly in the country districts where military forces are not so available—to see these Home Guard units provided with heavier armaments and equipment than they have to-day.
There is another point to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of the provision of adequate numbers of live grenades for practising purposes. This is very important. If accidents are to be avoided, and if Home Guardsmen are to be useful in actual warfare, every Home Guard ought to have thrown at least two or three live grenades, besides practising with ordinary dummies. We all know that much greater care has to be taken in handling and throwing live grenades than is the case with dummies. A grenade is a very useful weapon of offence which is valuable for any defensive purpose, especially in the hands of such forces as the Home Guard.
I wish also to raise the question of the present procedure in cases of prosecution of members of the Home Guard for absence from parade. The procedure is so very complicated, cumbersome, and involved that I cannot believe that, as a general rule, Home Guard officers will have the inclination or the time to devote to bringing prosecutions under it. So much is this the case that, should the Regulations be retained in their present form they are likely, so far as I can see—and I have looked into them—to become a dead letter, and men will continue to absent themselves from parade with impunity. This, of course, causes much discontent among those, whether volunteers or men who joined compulsorily, who attend and carry out their duties regularly. What is really wanted is a simple procedure under which, when the Company Commander has warned the Home Guardsman when and where the drills are to take place and the number of hours
50
he is expected to attend per month, the man can be prosecuted if he fails to do a reasonable number of drills. Both the men and the officers would understand that procedure, which is fair and quite simple. I am not asking my noble friend to answer this to-day, unless perhaps he is able to do so, but I hope he will look into it, and endeavour to have the procedure simplified, because it is really useless for its purpose as it is drafted to-day.
Another point in the same connexion that I wish to bring to my noble friend's attention concerns the grounds upon which a Home Guardsman may be discharged from the Home Guard. At the present time there are two grounds, as I understand: one is ill health, and the other is change of occupation which involves longer hours of work. Those two grounds are all right; but I submit that there ought to be two further grounds—namely, unsatisfactory conduct and general unfitness to remain a member of the Home Guard. I make that suggestion because a useless member of a fighting force is perhaps more dangerous to his friends than he is to his enemies. There is also a further point which I had informed my noble friend that I proposed to raise. First of all, there is the question of pay and allowances when a Home Guardsman is mobilized in any part of the country in the event of invasion. I communicated with my noble friend about this. He tells me that I have used the wrong word, and that the word is "mustering." Well, it comes to the same thing. But I should like to hear from him that full provision has been made for pay and allowances going on in the event of conflict with the enemy. I should like to know exactly what the position of officers of the Home Guard is in this respect.
I come to another point—rather a controversial one, I believe. I do not wish it to be controversial, but it has become controversial. It is the question of the treatment of officers of the Home Guard generally. First of all, there is the question of travelling third-class instead of first-class. That point has been raised in your Lordships' House before, and I think that submissions were made to His Majesty's Government at that time—I rather think the question was raised from the Labour Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—that no differentiation

51
should be made between officers of the Home Guard and officers of the Regular Army in this respect. Many arguments have been put forward, but I think the most important one is that, whereas an Adjutant of a Home Guard battalion who is a Regular officer is entitled to travel first-class—indeed, I suppose he must, if there is room for him in a carriage—the Colonel of the battalion from whom he must take his orders does not travel first-class but third-class unless he himself pays the difference between the two fares. That seems to me a most curious and inverted way of looking at these things. Therefore I again urge the War Office to look into this matter and see whether an anomaly like that cannot be adjusted.
That brings me to the question of the treatment of officers in military hospitals. When the Home Guard is mobilized, and something happens to an officer when he is serving on his ordinary duty—it may be during an invasion exercise or anything of that sort—he has to be sent to a military hospital or civil hospital, but if to a military hospital he is then put into an ordinary private ward. I happened to possess incontestable proof of this. I do not propose to read my proof to your Lordships' House, but you can take it from me that what I have said is perfectly true. That is all wrong. I feel that most of your Lordships as well as the mass of the people of this country would be of the opinion, quite apart from members of the Home Guard themselves, that if the officers of the Home Guard are wounded on duty, and have to receive hospital treatment, they should be received in the military hospitals of this country upon exactly the same terms as officers of the Regular Forces.
This is not a question of class differentiation. All classes are contained in His Majesty's Army to-day—in all the Fighting Services, in fact, as well as in the Home Guard. You have men who might be regarded as those who might hold His Majesty's Commission serving in the ranks, and many very admirable, worthy, and excellent men are serving with officers' Commissions who in the days of the small Army might not have received those Commissions. Therefore, this is not a question of class at all. It is a question of the ordinary procedure of the Fighting Forces, that when officers and men are wounded, and they go to a military hospital, they go
52
to the particular wards set apart for their particular ranks. I am not going to say anything more about this to-day. I am going to ask my noble friend (Lord Croft), if he cannot answer me to-day—and I doubt if he will be able to answer me fully—to place this matter, with all the ability and eloquence which he commands, before the Army Council and see whether it is not possible to put this question on a proper footing, the footing which the Home Guard desire and which I am sure the people of this country would consider right.
That is my final point. But I should like to say this in conclusion. Many stones have been hurled at those in the War Office and in the country who have been responsible for building up and administering the Home Guard since its inception. I have made critical suggestions myself from time to time, but in no hostile sense, and I should like to take the opportunity to-day to pay a real tribute to those who have been concerned in this great work—a work which has been accomplished in spite of very many difficulties and in a very short period, and a work which has given this country, very largely on a voluntary system, an organization consisting of nearly 1,750,000 men who to-day form a solid bulwark of defence and a menace to any form of invasion which might be staged against us by the enemy. This has admittedly been a splendid feat, but it could not have been accomplished had it not been for the intense patriotism and self-sacrifice displayed by all those who are serving in the Home Guard. When the war is over the Home Guard will be eminently justified in looking back with pride on the important and patriotic part they will have taken in the great struggle for world liberty. In the meantime all possible should be done to help to increase and improve their fighting efficiency, and it is in this spirit and with that object that I ask the Government to consider my representations to-day. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, this is one of those sad occasions on which the best of friends must part company. I hate to find myself in the opposite camp not only to the noble Viscount who has just sat down, but also to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I am not so much interested in the question of the numbers or the equipment of the Home Guard. On

53
those points I am largely in accord with the speech that has just been delivered. I must say that I think the difficulties which have occurred due to the compulsory nature of service in the Home Guard now, have been in accordance with ray expectations when I opposed that compulsion. What I want to protest against at this moment is the introduction of class distinction into that admirable force, the Home Guard. I should like to know, first of all, from the noble Lord, whether there is any appreciable demand from the Home Guard for first-class fares for officers travelling by train. I do not believe there is. The Home Guard is essentially a brotherhood. My chauffeur is an officer in the Home Guard, and I was till recently a private—a gentleman guardsman—in the Home Guard. We are one in the defence of our land. What are these first-class fares to be used for? In ordinary life the officer in the Home Guard does not wear uniform. In fact he is not allowed to wear uniform. The only occasions on which he can travel in uniform are those on which, on certain days, he is going out for manœuvres or other exercises in the neighbourhood in which he lives. Then perhaps he may have a short journey to make. It does not matter in London in any case, because everybody travels third-class within 50 miles of London. But there may be certain cases where Home Guard officers have to travel with their men. Do you want to have a Home Guard officer watching his men piling into the third-class compartments while he gets into the first-class?
The work done by the War Office in recent months in trying to break down class distinctions in the Army, and to bring this spirit of brotherhood of the Home Guard into the different companies and regiments of the Army, has been admirable. We do not want to break that down in the Home Guard. With all our dear old-fashioned ideas of a thousand years ago, when Lord Elibank and I were young, this sort of class distinction might have been all right. Those ideas are now out of date end obsolete, and the sooner they are removed not merely from the Home Guard but from the Army itself, the better. I rather hope that, before this war is over, we shall see the abolition of first-class altogether. As it is the only people who travel first-class in this country to-day are the people
54
whose fares are being paid for them by somebody else. Lord Elibank pointed with something like horror to the terrible picture of an Adjutant in the Regular Army attached to a Home Guard bat-talian having to go up with the Commanding Officer of the battalion to see some functionary at the War Office, the Colonel travelling third-class and the Adjutant first-class. I do not know what the Colonel would say to that; but it reminded me very much of what used to happen in the House of Commons when we had our first-class fares paid to our constituency and our wives had to pay and travel third. Such a thing inevitably resulted in our travelling third-class with the superior officer. The difficulties that arise directly you start making these out-of-date class distinctions are innumerable. I hope, therefore, that the War Office will stand firm and preserve for the Home Guard the idea with which it started, that of a common brotherhood. The night watch of the Home Guard, that splendid brotherhood of the stars, I regard as one of the finest results of this war. I hope the War Office will do nothing to imperil it—on the contrary, that they will do everything to see that the spirit which permeates the Home Guard is to be found also in the other Armed Forces.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rise only to correct a misapprehension under which my noble friend who has just spoken seems to be suffering. I was the originator of this Motion in the House, as Lord Elibank has reminded your Lordships, and I did it as a member of the rank and file of the Home Guard. If all officers of all the Services preferred to travel third-class or if, as my noble friend suggests, all first-class carriages were abolished, we should have no complaint at all to make. What we object to is the discrimination that is made. Officers of the Fire Brigade, of the A.T.S., of the W.R.N.S. and the W.A.A.F., all the officers of the Fighting Services, and all the newest subalterns in the Army travel first-class, and we object very much to the distinction that is made between them and officers of the Home Guard. When the Home Guard units are travelling out to the ranges to train we all travel together, and there is no complaint whatsoever about that. It is when officers have to make long journeys on their official duties and find this distinction made against

55
them that I think there is justifiable resentment. If my noble friend travelled as much about the country as I do by railway trains he would know that his ideal of a one-class travel is coming about unofficially and irregularly by the crowding of people holding third-class tickets into first-class carriages. That need not worry him, as it does not worry me, but I think this separating of the officers of the Home Guard from all other officers is objectionable. It is a hang-over or survival from the original suspicion with which, I am afraid, the Home Guard was regarded in certain quarters.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, I think it has been extremely interesting to your Lordships to hear arguments on the Labour Benches as to who should travel first-class and who should travel third, but I do not propose to enter into the discussion on that aspect of the subject because we have heard a good deal about it, and perhaps enough. I would like to say a few words with reference to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Elibank dealing largely with the strength of the Home Guard. I am not going to argue about the points which my noble friend raised with reference to that particular matter, but I would like to say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood—if I might do so without raising controversy which one does not want to do to-day—who said that the introduction of compulsory service into the Home Guard had ruined the Home Guard. I was always of the opinion, and I have stated it in your Lordships' House from time to time, that that would be the case, but your Lordships thought better of it, and introduced it and there it is. It is no use crying over spilt milk now. But the strength of the Home Guard to-day would, I believe, have been greater if it had not been for the introduction of compulsory service.
However, let that pass; it does not matter to-day. What I feel is that when we are thinking of the strength of the Home Guard there is a matter which might well be considered by His Majesty's Government, and that is introducing and forming a reserve of the Home Guard. There are many of us who have served in the Home Guard since its beginning. As time goes on we are getting older and becoming less active, and we cannot do the work which younger men can do. Still
56
we are, in our own estimation, capable of doing a good deal of useful work for the country, and if a reserve were formed of those of us who are considered to be, and are, over the statutory age for the Home Guard, there are many duties which we could usefully perform for the country in a state of emergency. Do not let us forget that when the Home Guard was formed it was done to meet an emergency. What was the emergency? Invasion. Every man who was capable of using a rifle and who had had any military experience was asked to come forward and give his services in the defence of his country. Crowds of us did come forward, and we formed a great force, now called the Home Guard. Now many of us are being discharged because we have arrived at a certain age, but we are still, I believe, capable of doing something. We may not be able to swim the Channel or climb Mont Blanc, but there are many other things we could do in an emergency.
Supposing an emergency arises then we of the reserve, composed of older people, could be used for guarding convoys, guarding many posts all over the country, controlling the civilian population in case of hasty evacuation, and performing many other duties such as could be well performed by older men who have had long experience in the Army, who understand discipline and who can act themselves and carry out orders in an intelligent and practical way. The forming of such a reserve should, I think, be considered by His Majesty's Government. It would cost nothing at all. We should receive no pay, no emoluments, no anything. We should be allowed to retain our uniform for what it is worth, and after two years service in the Home Guard, as many of your Lordships understand, the uniform which was first served out is not worth very much to-day. But we are prepared, and we would be proud to form a reserve. I do not wish to say anything more about that.
There were many points which my noble friend Viscount Elibank raised, which I am quite sure my noble friend Lord Croft will answer. Therefore I will not go into all these various questions. I am quite sure they can be answered, and I believe I could answer them if I took up your Lordships' time, but naturally I do not want to do that in view of the fact that my noble friend Lord

57
Croft will reply to the debate. I would, however, like to say a word about one fresh point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Elibank. He spoke about officers being admitted into wards of hospitals not reserved for officers. It has been my fate in the course of many long years in the Army to be admitted into hospitals, and in recollections going back, anyhow, to the Boer War, I can remember very well being admitted into what were called hospitals with men in the ranks. I was very proud to be with my men. We were all in the same room.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think my noble friend is unwittingly misrepresenting me. I was not talking about officers being admitted into hospitals and perhaps having to go into the men's wards because the hospitals were overflowing. What I did say was that the fiat had gone forth that no Home Guard officers should be admitted into officers' wards. That is quite a different thing. Of course, officers may have to go into ordinary wards if other wards are full, but Home Guard officers are not to be permitted to go into officers' wards at all.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I naturally will not say that my noble friend is wrong, but the spirit of the whole thing is wrong. I am a private in the Home Guard, but I have been an officer all my life. What does it matter to me whether I am in a ward with men or not? It is a small matter. It is inevitable, when you introduce a new force like the Home Guard, that you should find difficulties and misunderstandings and mistakes being made by those who organize the force and by the rank and file. You cannot help it when you form a new force like this in a hasty manner; but those of us who have joined the Home Guard as privates should do what we can to minimize all these difficulties and not increase them. It is our duty to do what we can to help things and not to make more difficulties. It is the opinion of Some people to-day that the danger of invasion has receded. Although that opinion may be held, yet in view of the attack in the Western Mediterranean I think we should not relax our efforts in any way. On the contrary, we should do all we can to close our ranks and sink any differences which we have in the Home Guard in view of the possible
58
dangers to come. I think we have a great chance, especially those of us who sit in your Lordships' House and have been proud to serve as privates in the Home Guard. We have an opportunity to-day of converting the words Noblesse oblige into action. Let us do all we can to get the Home Guard respected not only in this country, but, if the time comes, by the enemy.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, may I first be permitted to say in connexion with the speech to which we have just listened, that I do indeed appreciate the words of my noble friend the Earl of Clanwilliam, and if it is not impertinent I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the devoted patriotism which he has displayed ever since the Local Defence Volunteers were first formed. I am sure all your Lordships will recognize that it has been an inspiring example to all who have seen the noble Earl going out night after night and day after day, bearing the burden of sentry duty in all weathers. Although I did not realize that he was going to raise rather different issues from those in the Motion on the Paper, I can assure him that any words coming from a man with his service will certainly receive every consideration, and I will see that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War.
At the outset, in reply to the Motion of my noble friend Viscount Elibank, I may say that I fully appreciate the spirit in which he offered them, and especially I should like to thank him for the defence of the War Office in his concluding sentence. I hope that events are now proving that the War Office is not far behind any other Service in organization for great events the world over. I am in full agreement with the views that my noble friend expressed in the first part of his speech in so far as the increase in ceiling is concerned. But it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I explain what the Home Guard ceiling actually is about which there has been a good deal of discussion and misunderstanding. The ceiling is, in fact, the establishment of the Home Guard: the figure at which it is considered desirable and possible to maintain its strength, and as conditions

59
change so the ceiling has been altered from time to time.
Some people have asked why it is necessary to have a ceiling at all. I will give your Lordships the reasons. First, the equipment, clothing and armament of the Home Guard must be planned many months ahead. Nobody can expect the War Office or the Ministry of Supply to be able to handle increases which may involve hundreds of thousands of men unless they have laid down a target figure and planned the provision of material in advance. Even then, accidents happen and deliveries are not made up to time. I am sure that nobody would want a repetition of the difficult days of 1940, when men flocked in such very great numbers to join the Home Guard that it was impossible at the time to provide for the equipment of their needs. It took many months, as your Lordships remember, to overtake arrears. Secondly, now that compulsory enrolment is in force, the evidence indicates that direction into the Home Guard is going very well. The pleasing feature is that old volunteers have welcomed directed men and the directed men have assimilated the spirit of the Home Guard, so that there really is no kind of difference. The whole force is working very happily together, so I am informed, whenever I spend my Sunday, as I frequently do, with the Home Guard. The Ministry of Labour comes into the picture with regard to compulsory enrolment, and it requires to know the numbers in each locality which it is expected to find. Those numbers must bear some relation, of course, to the man-power available.
Thirdly, and to my mind, the most important reason, is the operational one. The employment of the Home Guard under the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, is governed by local defence needs and requirements, which have to be prepared for each town and each village according to the number of men who are available. These schemes must be based on a certain number of men, a definite number of men. If the numbers are liable to fluctuate there can be no finality in the defence schemes, and Home Guard Commanders will be placed in the position, which we all desire to avoid, where their operational role is constantly being revised and altered. The same considerations apply to the Anti-Aircraft Home
60
Guard. Batteries of the Anti-Aircraft Home Guard cannot be properly manned unless the numbers required are fixed and their strength is maintained.
I think your Lordships will all agree that the numbers required in the Home Guard must be fixed. We must know where we stand, whether you describe the process of fixation by the word "ceiling" or by any other name, and to increase the ceiling means, therefore, to raise the strength of the Home Guard. The ceiling has already been raised, and as I stated in the House recently in reply to Lord Mottistone—on the 29th September, I think it was—the strength of the Home Guard is now very much higher than it has ever been. I think the actual words which I used were: "It has been increased by many tens of thousands." We do not want to be more accurate than that. There is no reason to help the enemy by giving him exact numbers. Even since I spoke, only just a little more than a month ago, it has increased—the strength of the Home Guard has increased by over 40,000 men, the equivalent in numbers of two very strong divisions. And this, my Lords, in spite of the fact that such numbers of young Home Guard men have passed on into the Regular Army and other Fighting Services when their call-up has come along.
I am only able to tell your Lordships to-day that a further review of Home Guard requirements has just been completed. The whole problem of increasing Home Guard numbers is very closely connected with the new strategical situation which has developed in the last few days, and I am sorry that I cannot make any announcement on the subject to-day, although it is at this moment exercising all our minds. Bound up with these larger matters are the immediate arguments for increasing the ceiling, such as the possible need for increased protection of vulnerable points, including airfields, and also the need for increased numbers in certain cases for general operational duties. Full provision has already been made for the increased numbers of the Home Guard required for anti-aircraft duties, and I can tell your Lordships that recruiting has been going very well for these arms. For some time that has been true, and requirements are well on the way to be met.
But having said that, I should be wrong if I did not draw the attention of the House to a number of limiting factors.

61
First of all, as your Lordships realize, the distribution of the numbers who can be accepted into the Home Guard must be decided by operational conditions. In other words, they must be strongest in those places where the military authorities think they are most likely to go into action. Clearly, the result of this is that we seek to enrol a very high proportion of Home Guards to population in certain vulnerable areas, many of which are sparsely populated, while in other areas there are, as I fully realize, numbers of men who would like to join the Home Guard but who often have to wait before they can do so. That is the first difficulty. The second difficulty is that there must be a certain definite ratio—so far as the numbers are concerned—of weapons to men. If the number of men enrolled exceeds the number of weapons available by more than a certain figure, you will have men enrolled who in fact cannot be employed in useful military duty. I do not want your Lordships to think that we are not training enough people in advance so that when the weapons come they can be properly used. On the contrary, the forward programme of weapons and equipment deliveries is well known to those who are concerned with the ceiling of the Home Guard, and there is no danger that when the weapons and equipment arrive the corresponding increase in ceiling will not have been made in so far as man-power considerations allow. I hope, therefore, that I have been able to reassure the noble Viscount who moved the Motion with regard to that subject, even though I cannot promise him that everyone who wants to go into the Home Guard can go in at once irrespective of our power to arm and equip him.
Likewise I sympathize very much with those Home Guard Commanders who feel that their task of local defence is beyond their power with the small numbers of men available. I know that the military authorities have this matter very much in mind at the present time. But the troops at home, just like the troops in the various Forces overseas, have got to cut their coat according to their cloth, as our Commanders have had to do in many campaigns in this war, and it is our greatest concern to increase the supply of that cloth by every means in our power. Where the role of the Home Guard in existing defence schemes is too ambitious for the numbers available that
62
role should, clearly, be reduced in scope, and this, I feel, will satisfy many Home Guard Commanders who are genuinely afraid that they may not be able to carry out their orders.
Lastly, in connexion with this matter there is the question of man-power to be considered. Man-power for part-time duty in this country is not inexhaustible, and the Home Guard are not the only competitors in the market. I think you will agree that we must look on the civil and military defence of this country as one problem and not two problems. It is certainly one problem if looked at from the point of view of the attackers who will use the high explosive and incendiary bomb, the parachute, the glider and the assault craft as part of one long-term plan. Civil Defence measures and the maintenance of proper fire-guard services have their own operational importance and must secure their own quota of part-time man-power if each branch of the National Defence is to be efficient and ready for battle in its own sphere. Here I would like to tell my noble friend that the closest consultation is continually being carried on by the Regional Commissioners and the Commanders-in-Chief or Corps Commanders in the areas. This liaison and co-operation is becoming ever closer as the days pass. If there were no man-power problem, the simplest course would be to recruit separate people for each type of duty; but in many places there are, as will be realized, not enough people to go round. Whatever may have been the case in the past, the time is rapidly approaching when every person who can properly be directed into some form of part-time national service will have been called on, and in fact I think it will be found that the shirker and the lazy man—the man who skulks—is already very rare in most parts of the country.
My noble friend asked a question with regard to pay on muster. I do not think we need quarrel very much about the use of the word "muster" or the word "mobilization." I think that the Home Guard could be described as mobilized only if they were woven in with the Regular Forces after operations had begun to take place. I shall not quarrel with my noble friend, however, on a question of words. After mustering, the Home Guard will receive compensation for loss of earn

63
ings which is, I think, generally regarded as satisfactory. It amounts to the average wage of the man concerned up to a maximum of, I think, £3 14s., and I believe that that is regarded as a fairly satisfactory arrangement.
In some places there have been criticisms of the methods which have been used for compulsory enrolment into the Home Guard. We have had detailed investigations made into many cases where we have heard that there are complaints, and I am glad to say that most of the criticisms made in this connexion have turned out to be unjustified. Some necessary tightening up has already taken place, while in other places problems have been solved by increased co-operation between the officials of the employment exchanges and the Home Guard Commanders. I find that there is a great improvement in the cooperation which exists in many places, and therefore we shall rely more than ever on reciprocal arrangements between the Military and Civil Defence for mutual assistance as circumstances dictate. It is the policy of the War Office and of the Military Commanders in this country to give the fullest possible assistance from the Home Guard to the Civil Defence Services, and to make this more effective by planning and training beforehand. The arrangements for this mutual assistance were dealt with very fully by my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire in this House on October 13 last, and I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to cover the ground again.
I have indicated what the present position is, and I hope I have said enough to show that since we last debated the subject a good deal of action has taken place, which proves that these questions of Home Guard strength and organization are never regarded by the Government as being in a static or in a final state; they are under constant and, I think, fruitful study. Not merely has the strength of the Home Guard grown, but its efficiency is growing too. The quality of the training is steadily increasing, and for this I can call to witness those of your Lordships who are members of the Home Guard. The output of the Home Guard schools alone amounts to 12,000 Home Guard leaders who have so far attended courses, while the local courses and the
64
Home Guard travelling instructional wings have reached many tens of thousands of all ranks. There is no need for me to remind you of the recent improvement in the matter of ammunition. As regards grenades, to which my noble friend referred, I am glad to give him the assurance—and I think that this is true of most of the country—that there are very few Home Guardsmen who have not thrown one or two live bombs, in addition to the very necessary previous practice with dummy bombs. The supply of bombs, like the supply of other things, is sometimes a difficulty, but I think I am right in saying that bombs are now coming along in substantial numbers, and that where there has been any shortage for purposes of instruction there is good hope that that will be speedily put right.
Home Guard anti-aircraft units are now on operational duty in many parts of the country, and it is only because of the recent lightness of enemy air attack that more of them have not been in action. The Army Cadet Force—and I am grateful to my noble friend for the pressure he has exerted on me regarding this subject—is in full swing. Recruits are already coining into the Home Guard all the time from the Cadet Force, and are very much welcomed by Home Guard officers. All these developments have been attained despite the difficulties of equipment and of conflicting claims of production and of agriculture. By and large, I think that we can say that the people in this country are working a great deal harder now than they were at the time when the L.D.V. were first formed. The more this is so, the more the Home Guard can be relied on for the local defence of this country; and, viewed in the light of the immense recent developments of the war, the purpose of the Home Guard and its vital importance can be clearly seen, changed since 1940 yet essentially the same. In those days we thought of the Home Guard solely as part of the defence of this country against invasion. It still performs that role, for, although large-scale invasion may be improbable in the immediate future, raids of a serious type, air-borne or sea-borne, are by no means impossible; for, whatever may be the state of affairs in North Africa, for example, the enemy still faces us in force across the narrow seas of the Channel. We can now view the task of the Home Guard, however, in a somewhat different

65
light. It is in fact contributing to the general offensive by undertaking in increasing measure the local defence of the home base, and so freeing more of our Regular Army to fight overseas. Let us hope that this will remain its task for the months to come.
If I may now refer to the points of criticism made by my noble friend, I have nothing very much to add to what I said on the subject of first-class fares when the matter was debated during the last Session, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering all these problems and, as some of your Lordships know, he is discussing this, amongst other matters, to-day at a meeting which I believe some of your Lordships are attending. I cannot anticipate the outcome of this discussion. The present Regulation regarding the treatment of Home Guard officers in convalescent hospitals follows the principle which has governed the Home Guard since the formation of the L.D.V.—namely, that all ranks should be treated alike. I can therefore give no assurance that this Regulation will be modified or withdrawn. I may say, however, that I received an intimation from my noble friend that he was going to raise this question only on Thursday night. I had not previously seen the letter to which he referred, and want to assure him that consideration will be given to the question of whether any special arrangements can be made by which Home Guards may be placed in separate wards from those occupied by the Regular Army, if we find in fact that this is really desired.
I should like to say a word with regard to prosecutions, a subject to which my noble friend referred. I quite realize that there are difficulties in dealing with prosecutions for absence from Home Guard parades. Some of these difficulties are caused by the need to prove beyond all doubt that a man was properly warned for a particular parade from which he was absent. I fully realize the difficulties, but I suggest to your Lordships that it is much better to take great care over such prosecutions and to secure a high proportion of convictions rather than to adopt less strict methods which would lead to a number of acquittals, so largely defeating the purpose of the prosecution in the minds of the public.
66
The result is that about 202 prosecutions have been authorized by the Military Commanders and have taken place, and 89 per cent. have resulted in a conviction. In 5 per cent. of the cases the Police have decided not to prosecute, in 1½ per cent. of the cases the Home Guards received admonition, and only in 3½ per cent. was the accused acquitted. I think that report justifies the care we have taken in arranging these prosecutions, and it now remains to be seen how, once a sound practice has been set up, the machinery can be made to work more easily. We do realize the point which my noble friend has made. We have already delegated the authority to authorize prosecutions from Army Commanders to District Commanders, and we have in mind certain steps to simplify the evidence required, but this will require legislative action which, if it proves desirable, will be put forward without delay.
Although not directly responsible to the Army Council for the Home Guard, I have, as some of your Lordships are aware, taken an intense interest in its development from the start, and I give way to no man in my desire to meet any legitimate grievances, and to effect improvements in this truly remarkable and unique Force. I would, however, remind the House of the indisputable fact that when the Force was formed it was a spontaneous response of citizens to the call to defend their native land as citizen soldiers. It was a force of the people somewhat similar in its inception to the Trained Bands, Fencibles and, at a later date, the Volunteers, which were formed on similar occasions of peril. All ranks in this case joined without any idea of privilege, and officers flocked in offering their services everywhere without any conditions whatever. No man demanded rights, all demanded simply the right to serve. It was an army of good will, in which retired General Officers, Colonels, Majors and Captains in large numbers actively joined the ranks as privates, as also did several members of your Lordships' House. Personally, if they had taken me back into His Majesty's Forces I should have been very proud to lie with my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam in hospital. However, that is neither here nor there. But the fact remains that a good many members of your Lordships' House joined this Force.
LORD MOTTISTONE: There is one Field-Marshal.
LORD CROFT: I apologize for not mentioning that. After the Force had grown at such a stupendous rate it became clear to us that such was the strain on senior officers in zones and battalions, that we decided to post first assistants and, latterly, professional soldiers as Adjutants and officers for administrative duties. In taking these steps we responded on our own volition to what had become a real need. From a very close acquaintance with the Home Guard I personally was most anxious that this important decision should be taken, and I think it gave immense relief to the Force and meant a great deal to its efficiency. It was generally welcomed, but I confess I never thought, when I was pushing the matter forward, that because Adjutants were supplied, thereafter the demand should be made in debate that any conditions applicable to Home Guard Regular Adjutants should ipso facto become applicable to all Home Guard officers. On the question of Adjutants which my noble friend raised I know that he again quoted the peculiar case of the Regular Adjutant who travels first-class while the Colonel only gets a free third-class warrant. This point has already been made four times in our debates, but I think it is very rare that Colonels and Adjutants go on a long journey together away from their unit; in fact it is unusual, if not indeed undesirable. I have no doubt that there are many who very sincerely advocate this reform as desirable, and I yield to no man in my belief that discipline in the Home Guard must be maintained. But I hope that, pending further discussions, we may now concentrate on the big things of the war, and that your Lordships may not be deflected by what are comparatively minor anomalies.
Then the question of Commissions for officers arose and was pressed with great vigour in some quarters. On this subject I think it should be known that the demand was by no means universal; in fact, a considerable number of Home Guard leaders feared that it might alter the character and spirit of the Force. I certainly did not share that view, and the War Office decided to grant Commissions because we considered it vital that in case of active operations with Regular troops, officers of the Home Guard should have
68
their status in operations clearly defined. That, I think, was convincing. When we made that decision to grant officers the King's Commission, we made it abundantly clear that it must in no way alter the basic principles on which the Force was formed, and that the Commission should carry no privilege not previously enjoyed by the officers of the Home Guard. I do not want to detain the House, but I could read Sir Edward Grigg's most explicit statement in another place, a statement which was never challenged then, and I think until very recently has never been challenged anywhere. It will be recalled that the mere fact that we had granted Commissions was made an argument in debate for the introduction of new measures as to the status of officers and men in such matters as travel, and to-day the noble Viscount wishes to make still more basic alterations governing the Force in connexion with hospital treatment, etc.
I regret having detained your Lordships so long, but so many subjects have been covered in the speech of my noble friend. I think a moment's reflection will convince your Lordships that if these reforms were to be entered into piecemeal it would be a change of policy and principle, and would have to be considered as such, since the basis on which the Force was formed would be completely altered by changes of this nature. We welcome any champion of the Home Guard who raises matters in their interests, as I know my noble friend has done to-day, but I would utter a caveat. The Home Guard, taking it all round, are a very happy Force, and the relations of officers and men on the whole are most friendly. I would beg my noble friend to stress more the great and potent factor that the Home Guard are in the defence of our country, rather than to criticize on matters of lesser importance in battle—because that is really the point—or to create the idea that these patriotic officers are labouring under grievances, when in fact they are cheerfully pulling their weight as few men have ever done in any land. I want to assure my noble friend that I have noted most carefully all that has been said, and I will most certainly see that these matters are given full consideration. I will call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to what has been said in this debate to-day. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that the

69
Home Guard have grown very rapidly in the last few months, and have progressed in training to a very marked degree, and that, in spite of this growth, they are now better armed and equipped than any of your Lordships could have hoped eighteen months ago. This great Force carries with it the good will and the gratitude, I believe, of the whole nation, and especially is this true of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I have listened to the speech or my noble friend with a great deal of satisfaction. After all, the main part of my Motion referred to an increase of the total ceiling of the Home Guard, and he has told us that there has been progress during the last few weeks, that the Government intend to go on with that progress, and intend to increase the strength as far as possible in conformity with arms and equipment. I do not think we could expect to hear anything more than that from the noble Lord to-day, and in any case we should have been more than surprised if he had given us any figures. With regard to the other points, I must protest against the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam that I raised any of these points under a sense of grievance or that I was trying to bring forward points which would create grievances and upset in the Home Guard. The noble Earl could not have understood some of the points, possibly because I did not make them clearly enough. I would assure aim that that was the last thing I had in mind, and it is proved by the reply my noble friend Lord Croft has made.
The only points upon which there is any disagreement between us are in regard to third-class and first-class travel, and to the arrangements for treating officers of the Home Guard in hospital. As I said in my speech, I can only urge upon my noble friend to make the representations which have been made in this House to-day to the Secretary of State for War—representations not only by myself but by the noble Lord on the Labour Benches (Lord Strabolgi), who is, I understand, a sergeant in the Home Guard. The point which I made is therefore not without substance, although the noble Lord may feel it is going beyond the original foundations on which the Force was formed. I do not propose to
70
say anything else to-day, because I am the last to wish to add exacerbation to any matters connected with the Home Guard. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said about the Force. I said practically the same thing in my concluding sentences and my only desire has been to add to the fighting proficiency of the Force. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ROY FEDDEN.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA,LORD BRABAZON OF TARA, who had given Notice that he would call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the dismissal from the Bristol Aeroplane Company of Sir Roy Fedden, their chief engineer, and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I have put this Motion down because I feel most unhappy at the situation that has arisen in that a great engineer, Sir Roy Fedden, has parted—been dismissed, in fact—from the Bristol Aeroplane Company. Their association has been so long and so successful that it is indeed a tragedy at the present moment that such a thing has occurred. Sir Roy Fedden represents the inspirational and inventive side of engine development, and I want to preface any remarks that I make by asking your Lordships to bear in mind this particular point with regard to aircraft and engines—namely, that quantity is not of such paramount importance. Quality is even more important. As we look back over the years of this war, we recognize that the fact that we are sitting here to-day is due not to our having had a lot of aeroplanes, but to the fact that we had the best in the world. If it had not been for the Hurricane and the Spitfire, we should have been defeated in this war by now. Therefore I ask your Lordships to remember the importance of the technical side of aeroplane construction.
The Bristol Company has dismissed Sir Roy Fedden. There is a dispute, and it is only right that we should analyse, in part, the two sides and two parties to this dispute. The Bristol Company was founded by Sir George White, with great imagination, some years ago. Sir George White had two sisters. It was the next generation who formed the board of that company and form it to-day. Never

71
since the beginning of the company has anybody but relations of that family been allowed upon the board. To-day there are two brothers and two cousins, and I propose therefore to designate the directorate of that company as the cousins. None of them are engineers. Whether they are very capable business men or not, I do not know, but I did refer to Flight in 1935 to see what happened when they changed from a private company into a public company. I see that they offered 360,000 10s. shares to a stockbroker issuing house for 37s. 6d. each, and that the latter sold them to the public for 52s. 6d., thereby making £270,000. Whether that was philanthropy or lack of business ability I am not qualified to decide.
On the personnel side of this company there were two men who were really responsible for its success. One was Captain Barnwell, who designed aeroplanes and who was eventually killed, as also was his son, flying. The other was Roy Fedden. Roy Fedden has produced the most successful radial air-cooled engines in the world. The list is an impressive one. It starts with the Jupiter, then the Mercury, the Perseus, the Pegasus, the Taurus, the Hercules, and now one of the biggest engines in the world is coming through. Sir Roy Fedden is responsible for more than half the power plant of the Royal Air Force to-day. All these engines have been copied all over the world. To show the sort of engineer he is, he was awarded the Guggenheim medal in America, and Dr. Lewis, head of the Advisory Committee on Aeronautics in America, said "I regard Sir Roy Fedden as the most outstanding engineer on air-cooled engines in the world." That is the type of man we are talking about who has been dismissed from the Bristol Aeroplane Company. Sir Roy was very much responsible for getting Lord Rothermere to take up that Miss Britain I, a purely private speculative venture, which was the basis of those Blenheim machines which, although out of date to-day, were of such vast use at the beginning of the war. He was also responsible for producing the Rotol Company. He saw clearly, although few others at that time saw it, that the variable pitch propeller was bound to come. It was advancing in
72
America and should be encouraged here, and he persuaded the Bristol Company and the Rolls-Royce Company to come together and form the Rotol Company. And if it had not been for the Rotol Company I do not know where we should have been to-day, because it has been a constant struggle to keep the supply of propellers up to the supply of engines.
The Government asked that Fedden should be put on the board as long ago as 1931, but the cousins were not going to break their personal relationships. In 1940 the Ministry of Aircraft Production asked Sir Roy Fedden to come and help the Government, but the cousins replied, and very rightly, that he could not be spared because his services were wanted urgently and continually for the development and the running of his engines. Now, at the beginning of this year, Sir Roy Fedden, for all his great services to the country, was made a Knight, and it really is from that time that the trouble starts. In arriving at the question of what position he should hold in the company, Sir Roy Fedden has never said that he wanted to butt into the purely productive side; all he wanted, and all he was entitled to have, was complete control of the experimental and development and designing plant. The cousins offered him what was called the post of technical controller, but there was this point, that part of his organization was to be controlled by the productions manager; in other words he was going to be responsible for research and development and the designing of new things, but the control of his staff and the designs office were to be in somebody else's hands. He said that was an impossible position, and he could not accept it. They could not agree and consequently he was dismissed. We stand to-day, the Bristol Company, rather like Hamlet Limited without the Prince of Denmark.
That, my Lords, you will say is a domestic quarrel, and will ask why should I waste your time in bringing this point out. Well, I want to try to tell your Lordships that I think there is a national aspect behind it. As I said earlier in my remarks, the culmination of this man's work has resulted in his producing the most powerful aeroplane engine in the world. It has passed its type tests. It has got to go of course from the type test to become standard equipment in the ordinary squadron of the Air Force, but

73
there is a long way between a type test and an engine becoming a satisfactory engine in the hands of squadrons. At a time when we are all mechanics you will appreciate how much is required to be done before one can get a new engine into a satisfactory state. This engine is of the utmost importance to our Air Force. It wants its father to nurse and to look after it, and at the very time when that man is essential to that engine he is dismissed from the company. I do not believe there is anybody who will not view the situation with alarm and horror, and I think we are giving needless hostages to fate in what has happened in this regard.
There will be running through your Lordships thoughts this question: What should the Minister have done? Well, the present Minister succeeded me and I frankly say to your Lordships that I could not have done more than the present Minister has done, or even as much. He has taken this question under his wing, he has spent countless hours with the directors, with the cousins, with Sir Roy Fedden, has had countless conferences and very nearly brought them together; then they parted again. Nobody could have striven more than he to get these people together. The only power that he actually has is to put a controller in charge of the company, but he could not do that because you could only do that if you could show that the production of the company required it. The production of the company is quite satisfactory and he could not do anything. I would like to point out to your Lordships that if Sir Roy Fedden had been an ordinary man he would have come under a particular standstill order; he could not have been given the sack unless There was an inquiry; but apparently when you are the chief engineer of a company you can be dismissed at a. moment's notice, whereas an ordinary fitter has a court of appeal. I must say I think it is an unwholesome thing that the board of a company, a family with no outsiders on the board, should refuse to allow the creators of their great business upon their board, should on their own, against the persuasion of everybody, including the Government and including the Minister put us into a position where we are going to be handicapped, I think deliberately, from a national point of view. It may be that the situation has now got to such a pitch that nothing can be done. I think it is
74
regrettable, knowing engine development as I do and the position of that engine to-day, that we have got to a state when, at the most critical time in the development of that great power plant, Sir Roy Fedden has been taken away from it.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, on a salt marsh within fifty miles of your Lordships' House history was made when, with but a handful of witnesses, a very courageous and far-sighted young man made the first power-driven flight in the United Kingdom on the 27th February, 1909. Other flights followed within the year, and the pilot qualified for the Royal Aero Club certificate No. 1, and later gained the £1,000 prize offered by a member of your Lordships' House for the first circular power-driven flight. That pilot, my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, affectionately known to all his pilots, to my noble friend Lord Londonderry who was Air Minister, and others, as "Brab," has raised a Motion of the very greatest importance. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is more than fitting that the leader in this art of air pilotage in the British Empire, and one of the first twelve men in the world to make a free and controlled mechanical flight, should have spoken as he has done about this sad case of Sir Roy Fedden in relation to the Bristol Aeroplane Company. I very fully support all that my noble friend has said about the Bristol Aeroplane Company. It is right that he should say it, and sad that one of the pioneer companies that followed the lead in the development of mechanical flight should have fallen so far from grace and behaved in so cavalier a fashion to one of the greatest geniuses in the design of aircraft engines that the world has ever seen.
There is much more that I would like to say on this matter, and I speak with feeling born of thirty years' experience in the practice and art of aeronautics, but I realize that the time of your Lordships' House is short. Having flown in every country in the world where aircraft engines are designed and built, I know at first hand how great the opinion is throughout the world of Sir Roy Fedden's skill in design. It is appreciated very widely. The bulk of the aircraft flying to-day, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, no matter from where they come, bear ample testimony to the genius of Fedden. Fedden-designed engines of

75
various types in aircraft built in this country, in Germany and in Italy, have held for a number of times the world's height record. To-day, this record is held by an aircraft fitted with an engine of which the most important components were designed by Sir Roy Fedden.
In the United States of America and in Great Britain, of all the aero engines built in the last twenty years, two-thirds have been air-cooled radials and Fedden is the acknowledged world leader in the design and development of this type. In the last twenty years engines totalling 75,000,000 horse power have been built, very largely in this country, but also abroad in the Occident and in the Orient and in the United States of America. This includes the engines built during this period in the shadow factories, but does not include the various types of air-cooled radial engines built abroad attributable in the main to the genius for design of Fedden, although not strictly termed Bristol engines. Your Lordships, I am sure, will find it hard to visualize the magnitude of the manufacturing effort that has been put into the building of these Bristol engines. Seventy-five million horse power is a very large figure, and what does it mean? If I may illustrate it in this way, it means that the horse power of the engines built in the last twenty years would be seven times greater than the total horse power available in His Majesty's ships in the summer of 1939, or expressed in another way, if London was to be enlarged twelve times, the horse power of the buses that would be required to serve so vast a city would be of the order of that mentioned, 75,000,000.
No man in our day has done so much for the development of aeronautics as has Sir Roy Fedden, and that this announcement should have been made by the Bristol Company when an important aircraft mission was landing on these shores from America was an extremely unfortunate thing. It is to be honed that something can be done to adjust these matters, and even if it is not possible for Sir Roy Fedden to return to the Bristol Company, which his genius has made a world force, as it undeniably is, then perhaps another company concerned with the question of design and development of these engines might be set up for that specific purpose. But this trouble, which
76
has been spoken about so very clearly by my noble friend Lord Brabazon, is a symptom of other troubles that are to be seen in the aircraft industry. I hope that something can be done to prevent repercussions of the same kind of difficulty—the difficulty in which people on the financial side make war against those on the technical side and, as in the case of Sir Roy Fedden, throw men out on the beach. Other companies substantially concerned with such troubles are the de Haviland Aircraft Company, Ltd., the Fairey Aviation Company, Ltd., D. Napier & Son, Ltd., and Short Bros. (Rochester and Bedford), Ltd. There is another, but as their case is sub judice, it cannot of course be mentioned by name.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD SHERWOOD): My Lords, the matter which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Brabazon is an important one, inasmuch as it deals with one of the most important parts of the defence of this country, the Royal Air Force. When the noble Lord who moved this Motion left the Ministry of Aircraft Production, my right honourable friend Colonel Llewellin, the present Minister, found that all was not right with the engine development that was going on in the Bristol Aeroplane Company. My noble friend who moved this Motion had been the Minister for some time, but when the present Minister came into office it was quite clear to him that matters had reached a stage of delay which made him bound to take an interest in a question of serious importance. In fact the Bristol Company and Sir Roy Fedden were only communicating through solicitors, and so it was clear that the Minister had to take action. Immediately this became clear to my right honourable friend Colonel Llewellin, he sent for Sir Roy Fedden and the other parties, and tried to get them together in order to find out what was the matter and arrive, if possible, at a satisfactory arrangement. All this time, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has pointed out, engine development was suffering, and that was a matter of urgent national importance.
It was vital that something should be done. My right honourable friend, the Minister, called the parties together and managed on the 3rd September to get an arrangement to which all sides were

77
agreed. Later on, however—in fact, it was the next day, I think—Sir Roy Fedden felt that he could not agree to this arrangement, although he had agreed to it at first. That was a serious matter, and I mention it to your Lordships only because the Minister had done his part in calling together the disputants in this very big matter in order to get them to agree. Letters were exchanged which proved it—I will not weary your Lordships by reading them—yet afterwards Sir Roy Fedden felt that he could not go forward. I say nothing more on that, but I wished to make the point because the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, made this a personal attack on the family who run this business, as if they were the people who had sacked out of hand Sir Roy Fedden with no idea that there had been difficulties which other people had come in to solve, and thought they had solved, and then found a solution was not there. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, told your Lordships, there is a power which the Minister possesses in that he can appoint a controller, but of course it is only when a company is being run really inefficiently that the Minister would exercise that right. My right honourable friend would riot shrink from doing this if he felt it was really necessary, but there is no evidence at all of inefficiency on the part of the Bristol Company.
Their activities can be divided into four parts—aircraft design, aircraft production, aero engine design and development, and development of aero engine production. Aircraft design is quite satisfactory, and aircraft and engine production is good. The difficulties which have arisen were entirely confined to the aero engine design side which was in charge of Sir Roy Fedden. That is where the difficulties, with which the Minister was faced, came from. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brabazon, that Sir Roy Fedden's name is associated with some of the great engines of our time—he mentioned the Jupiter, the Pegasus, the Mercury, the Taurus and the Hercules. We all know what these engines have done and how much in that connexion we owe to Sir Roy Fedden. But there is no doubt that a state of affairs had arisen which was not furthering the development of the Bristol engine. That was clear to my right honourable friend, and he had to take a decision having re-
78
gard to the range of interests of the Bristol Company. My right honourable friend weighed carefully all the factors involved, and he came to the conclusion that the war effort would be best served if the connexion between Sir Roy Fedden and the company was brought to an end. Four times in his speech my noble friend Lord Brabazon said that Sir Roy Fedden was "dismissed" and once he said that he was "sacked." Those are strong words to use. I have told you what Sir Roy Fedden has done, what the feeling is in the company, and what the company has to do, but there are personal sides to this matter and the Minister came to the conclusion that it would be better if Sir Roy Fedden and the company parted.
How are we going to employ Sir Roy Fedden, and on what terms? Everyone agrees that the services which he can render are very great, and the Minister has offered him a position involving his going to America. It is a position connected with this most vital matter of engines and various other matters in connexion with flying which are so necessary to the Minister's Department. It is indeed a post of the highest importance and Sir Roy Fedden has accepted it. Of course there have been negotiations, but I am quite certain that this job which the Minister has offered to Sir Roy Fedden and which he has accepted is one of the highest importance, and will give Sir Roy Fedden the opportunity of accomplishing even greater things than were within his scope in his former position. As my noble friend Lord Brabazon has truly said, it is quality not merely quantity, nor the personalities of people, that will count in the winning of this war. The Minister has the great responsibility of seeing that these important and highly-qualified people—Lord Sempill has very clearly given some indication of Sir Roy Fedden's high qualities—shall be employed to the best advantage, that their services shall be utilized in the best interest of the country. I am quite certain that what we should all wish now is not that this debate should concern itself with personalities or personal feelings, whether they be between man and man or between a company and a man, but that every man should be employed in the capacity which will enable him to give the best service. I am certain that the arrangement which I have outlined is such that your Lord-

79
ships will be satisfied that in this case that end is being attained.
Loma BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend for the reply which he has given. I must say that he devoted a good deal of his speech to defending the Minister whom I did not attack in any way. This matter had been boiling up long before my term of office, and if the advice of Sir Kingsley Wood, ten years ago almost, had been taken the present situation would never have arisen. I still think that Sir Roy Fedden's chief work, and that in which he could be most usefully employed, lies with his own creations, his own engines. But I think it goes to show the excellence of the present Minister that he has now arranged to use Sir Roy Fedden in the best way he possibly can. I sincerely hope that, although the Bristol Company is going to suffer, the advice and help which Sir Roy Fedden will give to the country, through the present Minister, will make up for any deficiency in other directions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CHANNEL ISLANDS.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK asked His Majesty's Government whether they are able to give any information about conditions in the Channel Islands and especially on the deportation of British subjects from there for compulsory labour on the Continent; and moved for Papers. The most reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I need detain the House only a very few minutes in asking for information about conditions in the Channel Isles. Over two years ago these most beautiful and interesting islands were occupied by the enemy, and since then the fog of war has almost entirely enveloped them. It is very difficult to obtain any information about what is actually happening now in these islands. Those who have friends there receive at long intervals very short letters which, naturally, have been very severely censored before being passed and it is not possible to ascertain from these letters the kind of conditions now present in the islands. Their many friends who evacuated to the mainland—something like
80
25,000 people, I understand—are naturally most anxious about those they have left behind. They want to know how they are living and how they are being treated. There is a number of children over here who have their parents in the islands, and there are parents over here who have their children in the islands.
These people are especially anxious about questions concerning food and fuel and light. The islands were not self-supporting before the war. Food had to be taken over to them from the mainland. The islands, no doubt, produce many early potatoes, tomatoes and a certain amount of fruit, but the total amount of food produced is quite insufficient for the islanders to live upon. The people of whom I have spoken are, as I have said, anxious about the fuel position. Even before the war there were times when very great care had to be taken over the use of coal. Probably all supplies of coal from overseas to the islands have now been stopped, and within the islands themselves there is very little wood. In Guernsey the amount of wood is very small. It is rather larger in Jersey but nothing like sufficient—even if the beautiful woods are cut down—to supply the islands with fuel. So far as the country districts are concerned—and those who do not know the islands personally must realize that, small as the islands are, there is a great difference between the towns and the country districts—there was before the war no electric light, and in most cases no gas. The people were dependent upon paraffin and candles. I imagine that it is now almost impossible to obtain either. This means that in the long winter nights the people are without sufficient food, without fuel and, in the country districts, probably without any light, so that they will probably have to go to bed extremely early, and spend all the hours of darkness in loneliness and depression.
But the anxieties which, for two years past, their friends and relations have had over these matters have lately been greatly increased. So far as we could learn, the treatment of the islanders by the Germans has not been characterized by the same brutality and cruelty which have characterized their attitude elsewhere in occupied countries. Lately, however, great anxieties have been aroused. An official statement was made a few weeks ago that a

81
number of British subjects in these islands had been deported for forced labour elsewhere. Photographs were published in many newspapers of the actual proclamation which had been printed by the Germans, ordering British subjects to report for this purpose. Since then we have heard nothing of what has happened, and I should like to ask the noble Duke who is to reply whether he can tell us whether the Germans have acted upon this proclamation, how many British subjects have been deported, to what kind of conditions they have been sent, and whether the Government have made the strongest possible protest against this action on the part of the Germans. The announcement that this has been happening has caused something like dismay among those who have friends and relations in the islands. I have had many pathetic and moving letters from people who are wondering what is happening to those whom they have left there; and it would be, I think, a very great satisfaction to them if the Government could an any rate tell us the facts.
The Government, of course, may not know very much themselves; they also may find great difficulty in obtaining information, or they may have some information which they cannot make public in case it would bring trouble to those from whom they have obtained it. But, if it is possible to give some information and to offer some reassurance to those who have friends in the islands, it will cause very great satisfaction. At any rate I hope that the Government will be able to tell us that if this deportation has been taking place they will make—indeed, I hope that they have made—the strongest possible protest. I hope that they will do everything in their power to safeguard the interests of these unfortunate people who have been so ruthlessly taken away from their homes. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, small and ineffective as my voice may be, I wish to support the most reverend Prelate in what he has asked of the Government. The solution is, of course, very difficult, and it is perhaps impossible for me even to make any suggestion; but my original suggestion was that some word of encouragement should be sent to the islanders. I do not know that the Germans have maltreated them up to the present, but they think that they have
82
been left—to use a modern expression—in the lurch. The Germans are said to have left the Italians in the lurch, and the Italians have left their dogs in the lurch; the poor beasts have either been adopted by British soldiers or have died of starvation or, what is worse, of thirst in Libya. If we could give some small word of encouragement to the people of these islands, who, when all is said and done, live in what are the oldest possessions of the Crown, and who have not merely 25,000 evacuees on this side of the Channel but at least 15,000 men fighting for His Majesty, it would at any rate be something. Imagine the feelings of those men, who are gladly offering and giving their lives, yet have seen no encouragement whatever given to their people at home!
It is suggested that any such message sent to the islands would be spectacular. Well, where is the harm in that? The giving of a George Cross to Malta was spectacular. The Maltese, of course, have had very little to do with the defence of their island. We thought that Tobruk could not he taken, and we believe that Malta cannot be taken, but it is possible. If it would be spectacular to draw attention to Malta now, it is surely less spectacular to draw attention to the islanders who have been left in the lurch. Thousands and thousands of the most loyal people in the world are there, without so much as a sound coming to them from this side. They are, as the most reverend Prelate has said, starving, and starving in every sense of the word. There seems to them to be no hope. The Germans have fortified the islands and have imported thousands of strangers—all sorts and conditions of men—to strengthen their yoke on the islands, which they look on as their front line. The time will come, we trust, when they will no longer be their front line, but some time must pass before that day comes. In addition, therefore, to What the most reverend Prelate has said, I do ask that some word of encouragement from the proper source be sent to the islanders, so that the people may rise from the deep despair in which they have now been plunged for two whole years.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, as regards general conditions in the Channel Islands, the

83
evidence available—and, as the most reverend Prelate indicated, the evidence is scanty—justifies the conclusion that, although there is a marked shortage of food in the islands by comparison with this country, and an almost total lack of certain particular products, the effect of these deficiencies has not been such as to impair the general health of the inhabitants. I understand that the Channel Islands Refugees Committee has been compiling a summary of information which has become available about conditions in the islands, and that this information will very shortly be published by the Committee; I believe, in fact, that it is actually in the press. I am sure that its publication will be very much appreciated by the very many people in this country who are deeply interested in, and concerned for, our fellow-countrymen in this very unhappy position in these islands, as indeed we all must be. The welfare of these fellow-countrymen of ours is a matter of deep and constant concern to His Majesty's Government. Your Lordships are aware of the considerations which prevent help being sent to them.
As regards deportations, a proclamation, which was reproduced in the British Press, was issued by the German authorities on September 15. It runs as follows:
"By Order of the Higher Authorities the following British subjects will be evacuated and transferred to Germany:

(a) Persons who have their permanent residence not on the Channel Islands, for instance, those who have been caught here by the outbreak of war.

(b) All those men not born on the Channel Islands, and 16 to 70 years of age, who belong to the English people, together with their families."

No explanation is forthcoming of this action, which is as inexplicable as it is unjustifiable. Lists have so far been received from the German Government of some 800 persons, including women and children, interned in an officers' camp in Germany. The International Red Cross Committee immediately extended the British Red Cross weekly food parcel service to these people, and the Home Office have informed the next-of-kin if in this country. It is to be assumed or hoped that the German authorities have informed any next-of-kin in the Channel Islands,
84
but the Protecting Power has been asked to verify this. It is expected that the persons interned in Germany will be allowed the privileges to which prisoners of war are entitled as regards correspondence and food parcels. Friends in this country have already received postcards from some of them. That is all the information I feel justified in giving the House. I shall be happy to impart anything more that is available to the most reverend Prelate, or I suggest that he should go and see my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who is more directly concerned than I am. But I can well understand his deep anxiety on the subject of these people, and I can only regret that my answer has not been more adequate. But there are some facts which are known which for various reasons it is most undesirable to mention in public, and I must ask him on this account to be satisfied with this meagre reply.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am very grateful for the very sympathetic reply which my noble friend has given, and I am sure that the Government will do everything in their power to safeguard the interests of these people. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to
Urban District of Bishops Stortford;
Parish of Sible Hedingham in the Rural District of Halstead;
Rural District of Hungerford (Berks).
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

CREDITON GAS ORDER, 1942.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Crediton Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SCUNTHORPE GAS ORDER, 1942.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Scunthorpe:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTA- TION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1942.
India and Burma Orders Committee to meet forthwith
Report from the India and Burma Orders Committee, That they have examined the Draft Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention; and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.