Lords Sitting of 8 September 1942

Preamble
Re-assembling after the Summer Recess, the House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

H.R.H. THE LATE DUKE OF KENT.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil) had the following Notices on the Paper:
To move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep sorrow of this House at the great loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death on active service of Air-Commodore His Royal Highness Prince George Edward Alexander Edmund Duke of Kent, K.G., K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., member of His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion: to assure His Majesty that this House shares the general feeling of sorrow for the heavy bereavement which His Majesty has sustained by the death of a prince highly esteemed and beloved by His Majesty's subjects, and to express to His Majesty the dutiful and loyal interest which this House will ever feel in all that may concern His Majesty and the Royal Family.
To move to resolve, That this House do condole with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent on the sad bereavement which Her Royal Highness has sustained by the death on active service of Air-Commodore His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, K.G., K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, ours is a tragic generation. We live in times very different from those of our fathers. Rarely does a day pass without our being faced with some painful happening. The world is drenched with blood; we are glutted with horrors. One might almost have imagined that we had become hardened to grief and suffering; but even now from time to time an event will occur which still has power to shock the world. Such an event is that of which it is my sad duty to speak to your Lordships today, in moving that an humble Address
266
be presented to His Majesty on the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent.
The deplorable disaster in which His Royal Highness lost his life has robbed this country of a prince who had already played a great part in our national life, and who, it seemed, had clearly an even greater part to play in the future. The Duke of Kent was a man of no ordinary attainments; he had brilliant qualities of vitality and vision; he had swift and shrewd judgment. It was my good fortune to have occasional conversations with His Royal Highness on matters connected with the Empire, a subject in which he always showed a passionate interest; and the last time was only a few days ago, on the very day on which he started on the journey which led to his death. He was looking forward keenly to his visit to Iceland; he was, as always, glad to be able to do anything to help. His main preoccupation was that he could not do more. I remember thinking, as I went away, what a brilliant future lay before him. And now that future is no more; his life, which had in it so much of promise, has been suddenly and brutally cut short.
The ways of God are inscrutable, but this we can say: the Duke of Kent's death was not only a noble one; it was symbolic. We in this country are blessed with a Monarchy, and the essence of that Monarchy, the reason above all why it retains the loyalty, the affection and the esteem of the British people, is that not only His Majesty the King but the whole Royal Family are proud to share not only in our joys but in our sorrows and in our dangers. They are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. Of this intimate connexion, the Duke of Kent, both in his life and in his death, was an epitome. A prince of outstanding ability, in the plenitude of his powers, blessed with a happy family circle, he has given his life in the service of his country. How often in the last terrible years have the King and Queen and other members of the Royal Family mourned with us in our sorrows! To-day we mourn with them in theirs. In particular, I would express the heartfelt sympathy of your Lordships with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent and their children in their overwhelming sorrow. It would also, I feel sure, be the wish of this House, as of the late Duke himself, that I should express our deep sympathy with the families of those others

267
who, equally in the service of their country, lost their lives in this lamentable disaster. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep sorrow of this House at the great loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death on active service of Air-Commodore His Royal Highness Prince George Edward Alexander Edmund Duke of Kent, KG., K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., member of His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion: to assure His Majesty that this House shares the general feeling of sorrow for the heavy bereavement which His Majesty has sustained by the death of a prince highly esteemed and beloved by His Majesty's subjects, and to express to His Majesty the dutiful and loyal interest which this House will ever feel in all that may concern His Majesty and the Royal Family.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like with deep sincerity and with kindred sadness to associate ourselves with the Motions which the noble Viscount has submitted to the House. The noble Viscount indicated that His Royal Highness upheld in his life the splendid traditions of our Royal House, which are an example to the world of how, under wise guidance, monarchical institutions can adjust themselves to changing times, and provide a high example to the whole commonwealth of nations. His Royal Highness lost his life in characteristic, unostentatious service in the interest of the State, in the prime of life, his young wife and his children bereft: a signal example of the waste and sacrifice that are being forced upon the world at this time by the murderous brutality of the Nazis and their insatiable war-makers—which will be overcome, pray God, by free peoples who will make an end of such wickedness. In the time to come no doubt the spot where His Royal Highness met his death will be reverenced and will make a solitary place to be glorious and an inspiration.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble friends and I desire to associate ourselves in the fullest degree with what has been said from both the Front Benches, of regret at the tragedy
268
that has brought about the death on active service of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, and of sympathy with their Majesties the King and Queen and with the whole Royal Family, especially, I would say, with Queen Mary, and most of all, of course, with the Duchess of Kent and her children, who are left to face the coming years without him. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has reminded us, those coming years seemed to promise a future to His Royal Highness as attractive as could be presented to any man in his middle years. His personal popularity, and the universal good will which greeted him, brought about by his exquisite courtesy of manner; the hope of increasing interest in many forms of culture, art and music, and the enjoyment of foreign travel of which he had already seen so much; the prospect of undertaking great Imperial responsibilities, such as that of the Governorship of Australia which was so unhappily prevented by circumstances, and one can picture him also as representing the King-Emperor in free and federated India; most of all, of course, the radiant happiness of his home—all that went for nothing at the call of duty and the danger which he had to meet in the service of King and country.
But I do not now think only of his war service. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention two quite recent occasions on which I was privileged to observe his devotion to public work. As it happens, I am the senior of the four Elder Brethren of Trinity House who have seats in your Lordships' House—besides, of course, members of the Royal Family. It was only a few weeks ago, towards the middle of last month, that for the second time His Royal Highness, having succeeded his great uncle, the Duke of Connaught, as Master of that great corporation, made the formal declaration of loyalty to the King in the service of that corporation, and I know that all the Elder Brethren, and also the far larger number of Younger Brethren, most of whom are far older in age than he was, were looking forward to being for the rest of their lives presided over by a prince who himself had had a naval education, and was equally interested in the affairs of that corporation on which, in peace as well as in war, the safety of His Majesty's ships and of the Merchant Navy so much depends. The other occasion was that

269
of the annual meeting of King Edward's Hospital Fund of which His Royal Highness had become President. I can see him now, a gallant figure in Air Force uniform, delivering the annual address and carrying out the rather complicated duties of the meeting with all capacity. Those gatherings and others like them will see him no more, but we cannot forget, while we think most at this moment of his chivalrous last journey, that in happier days he would have given great service in his peaceful public duties and in the leadership of many good causes.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, as the oldest officer in the Royal Air Force, I would like to say how deeply grieved the Royal Air Force are by the tragic loss of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent in an air accident. I learnt recently from personal experience when visiting aerodromes that the whole Air Force realized and appreciated the keen interest he took in them—and not only the interest, but the help that he gave them in every way.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I would like to associate those who sit on these Benches with what has already been said. Monarchy in this country has developed in recent years so that the Sovereign suffers when his people suffer, and in return the people share in his bereavement. The whole Empire feels deeply with the King in the death of a much-loved brother, and with the Duchess of Kent and her children in the great and irreparable loss which they have suffered. The death of the Duke has come as a personal loss to large numbers who had only seen him on public occasions, but who have marked the thoroughness and dignity with which he carried out his many duties, while those who had come into contact with him, however slightly, had felt at once his charm and friendliness. He and his companions died on active service, and their names will be enrolled among the great host of those, of all ranks and classes, who have made the supreme sacrifice for their country. They have passed away from us, but we believe that in the unseen world they still live and there are given further and greater opportunities of serving.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
Moved to resolve, That this House do condole with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent on the sad bereavement which Her Royal Highness has sustained by the death on active service of Air-Commodore His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, K.G., K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.
Ordered, That the Duke of Norfolk and the Duke of Devonshire do attend Her Royal Highness with the said Message.

THE LATE VISCOUNT DUNEDIN.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, since your Lordships last met the House has suffered the loss of one of its oldest members by the death of Viscount Dunedin at the age of 92. In view of Lord Dunedin's long and distinguished public service in both Houses of Parliament, your Lordships would not wish this sad event to be passed by without some words in recognition of a career which was full of useful and successful achievement. In the Commons, Andrew Graham Murray, who was Member for Bute, held in turn the offices of Solicitor-General for Scotland and Lord Advocate. Next he was for some two or three years a member of Mr. Balfour's Cabinet with the office of Secretary for Scotland. Then, in 1905, Lord Dunedin began a judicial career which extended over more than a quarter of a century, first as Lord President of the Court of Session in Edinburgh, and then from 1913 to 1932 as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary sitting in this House and taking a constant and prominent part in the judicial work of our supreme tribunals.
This is not the occasion to attempt an elaborate estimate of his powers and qualities, but I would say quite simply that he may be confidently placed in the very first rank of British Judges. I believe that is the estimate formed of him both by his colleagues and by those who had the experience, as I had for many years, of practising before a tribunal in which he was included. He was a man of varied accomplishments and of the most lively understanding, and he inspired in some of us, not only a respect, but an affection which will not be lessened with time, but will be constantly sustained by the memory of his personality. Your Lordships would wish, I am sure, to join with me in the

271
expression of the sympathy which we in this House sincerely feel for Lady Dunedin in her bereavement.
LORD MACMILLAN: My Lords, to the tribute which has been so eloquently paid to the late Lord Dunedin by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack I should like to add just a word or two in praise of his services to the law of Scotland. Lord Dunedin had a very distinguished position in our legal annals. Parliament House in the Scottish Capital has seen many famous men, but few have done more to maintain its great traditions than the distinguished lawyer who, as Lord Justice-General and Lord President, presided in the Supreme Courts of Scotland for the period of eight years. His strong and vitalizing influence imparted a welcome stimulus to all our activities. Law, and especially the law of Scotland, was the dominating interest of his life, and none has done more to maintain its integrity. But he was no dry-as-dust lawyer. He had many contacts with the wider world, and to the solution of our legal problems he brought a fresh and interested outlook.
It was my fortune for many years to argue cases before him in the Court of Session, and I can only say that to argue before him was a sheer delight and an inspiration. The most accurate way in which I could characterize his legal ability is to quote the words which Lord Macaulay spoke of another eminent Scottish Judge. He said:
"He had one of those happily constituted intellects which, across labyrinths of sophistry and through masses of immaterial facts, go straight to the true point."
His judgments will serve for profit and instruction to many future generations of Scottish lawyers. In these days, when the lamp of justice is extinguished throughout a great part of the world, we do well to honour those who, in this country of ours, have kept it burning so brightly. The work of a great Judge is best appreciated by those who share in it, and I know that all my brethren of the Scottish Bench and Bar would wish me to-day to express, in valediction, their admiration for one of the greatest masters of Scottish jurisprudence.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, permit me to add my tribute to the memory of a very distinguished Judge. Lord
272
Dunedin was a great master of the law. Few men have made as great a contribution to the building up of our jurisprudence in the last forty difficult years, with all their new ideas in legislation and the new problems to be solved. To a profound knowledge of case and Statute law he brought a robust and virile common sense. Above all, his personal charm and consideration were welcome, not only to his colleagues, but to the counsel who practised before him. And may I add this: Sometimes in the course of a case a Judge is apt to make observations which, fortunately, do not appear in his final judgment. Sometimes these observations are contradicted immediately, but Lord Dunedin was always most charming and most considerate, and would always help you afterwards in suggesting that perhaps the observations you had made in the course of the case needed some consideration. I add my grateful tribute to the career and personal charm of Lord Dunedin.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am half ashamed to trouble your Lordships again, and I had hoped that my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin would have been able to complete the eulogium of Lord Dunedin that has been so well expressed by the three noble and learned Lords. I had the pleasure of enjoying Lord Dunedin's friendship for many years, and my relationship with the late Lord Rosebery, who was his contemporary, enabled me to hear much of the distinction already mentioned which surrounded him in Scotland. I remember him as a most cheerful and delightful companion, full of every kind of interesting reminiscence and, as the years advanced, showing an absolute refusal to grow any older.

MESSAGE FROM THE UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that there has been addressed to this House, as well as to the House of Commons, a message from the Chamber of Deputies of the United States of Venezuela, conveying cordial greetings, in token of the spirit of solidarity of the representatives of the Venezuelan people with the principles for the defence of which the United Nations are fighting.

273
Your Lordships will perhaps authorize me in the name of your Lordships' House to transmit a suitable reply expressing our satisfaction at the receipt of this cordial message and reciprocating the sentiments which it expresses.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.

THE WAR SITUATION.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, while the House will be aware that no noble Lord has put down any Motion on the Paper for the discussion of the war situation I have thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if I gave a general but brief review of the events which have occurred since your Lordships met. I suppose that the most significant and most dramatic single happening of this period has been the hazardous journey of the Prime Minister to the Middle East and to Russia. Of this my right honourable friend has already spoken himself earlier to-day very fully in another place, and it would be futile and impertinent on my part to seek to interpret or amplify the story he has himself told; but I think I can say that no one could overestimate the importance of that voyage both for its vital bearing on the position in the Middle East and on the close co-operation between ourselves and the Government of Soviet Russia. The voyage was, I think, characteristic of those combined qualities of daring and political flair which always animate the Prime Minister, and I know that the House would wish me to express to him our gratitude for undertaking it and also our deep relief on finding him safely home again.
I will not dilate any further on that journey, but will pass, if your Lordships will permit me, immediately to the more general developments in the war situation. On the last occasion when I had the honour of addressing your Lordships there was a situation in the Middle East of great anxiety and tension. Our Armies in Libya had suffered a severe and unexpected reverse. We had been driven from prepared positions covering Tobruk. We had retired first to the Egyptian frontier, then to Sidi Barrani then to Mersa Matruh, and finally we had turned to face the enemy in the strong position at El Alamein, flanked on the left
274
by the Qattara Depression and on the right by the sea. But I think none of us felt at that time any complete certainty that we should be able to hold even that line, and there was among numbers of noble Lords in this House quite clearly acute anxiety lest we should be driven back to the Nile Delta and to Alexandria. He would indeed have been a very sanguine man who had professed with absolute confidence that any further advance of the enemy could have been prevented. Since then over two months have passed, and I think we can say without undue boasting that our main anxieties have been relieved, and that the situation on this front at any rate is far better than we could have expected at that time.
It is true that we have not yet been able to recover the ground which we have lost, and that such advances and such attacks as we have made during the period between our last meeting and now have met with strong opposition; but the German advance was stopped at El Alamein and the loud and, as it turned out, premature shouts of triumph on the part of propagandists in Berlin and Rome have been most abruptly stilled. How far the situation has improved is, I think, shown by the fate of the attempt of the Germans themselves to advance during the last week. Perhaps the House might like me to give some few details of the events of that week. The general activity during the week immediately preceding the night of August 30–31 was confined to patrolling on both sides. On the night of August 25–26, New Zealand troops had carried out a successful raid and captured prisoners. During August 29, slightly increased enemy activity in the southern sector was reported. Early on the morning of August 31, German forces, including armoured units, pushed forward against the southern flank of the Eighth Army. They were engaged by our light forces. At 5 p.m. on that day the foremost enemy tanks were halted a few miles east of Qaret el Khadim, which is twelve miles to the south-east of the Ruweisat Ridge. A weak enemy thrust made previously against our main front was repulsed with loss to the enemy. On September 1, the enemy columns on our southern flank swung northwards towards the central sector of our front. In spite of repeated attacks by their armoured units, they only made progress by skirting our strong points and concentrations.

275
They were held wherever they made direct attacks.
The head of the main enemy column reached Alem el Bueib, thirteen miles south-east of El Alamein, while the tail was attacked by our troops from the south. During that evening the enemy appeared to be forming up for an attack with tanks on one of our armoured formations. His attack did not materialize. It seems that the enemy was tapping in along the front to test our strength. In the northern sector in the meantime our troops made a successful minor raid, taking one hundred German prisoners. During the following day, the 2nd September, the main enemy armoured forces remained concentrated in the area southwest of Alem el Halfa, fifteen miles southeast of El Alamein, their right flank being protected by an armoured car screen and the left flank by the Italian Ariete and German 90th Light Division. Our armoured forces remained in their battle positions all day without being engaged. The enemy mechanical transport columns offered good targets and were continuously engaged by our artillery and Air Force. The excellent results of the Royal Air Force bombing were confirmed by reports by our land forces. In the south our mobile forces destroyed sixty vehicles. During the night of the 2nd-3rd September enemy laagers were attacked by some of our mobile units, while the Royal Air Force carried out successful bombing on the best enemy targets yet seen, at the eastern end of the Deir el Ragil feature, fifteen miles south-east of the Ruweisat Ridge. On the 3rd September the enemy began to move westward harassed by our mobile forces. Some of our tanks were also ordered to harass the north-east flank of the enemy's positions. Air reports about midday showed a general enemy movement westwards. This movement, as the House knows, has continued ever since and the enemy are now back in their original lines.
I have given a fairly full account of the events of those days. What conclusions are we to draw from them? I think they are these. To what extent did this attack constitute a real major operation? People may of course hold different views in regard to this. The Germans have remained silent about it practically through the whole operation and now
276
they pretend that nothing really happened. Probably their plans were elastic and depended upon success of the preliminary thrust. But all the evidence which is at the disposal of the Government goes to show that it was not a mere raid. The whole Afrika Korps was brought into the fight. It pushed forward to swing north pursuing exactly the same sort of manœuvres as were employed by Rommel at the beginning of the attack on the Ghazar position. Now had this first thrust gone well, I think we might fairly assume that the whole forces of the enemy would have been hurled into the battle. On the contrary, owing to the skill of our dispositions and owing to the courage and fortitude of the British Forces, which, after all the gruelling experiences they have been through, apparently remain as high as ever, the result at the end of the first week was that the battlefield was entirely in our hands, that the enemy had suffered very material losses, and now, as I have explained, they have retired to the original positions which they left a week ago.
Of course your Lordships would be the first to say, and it is true, that it is most unwise to be over-confident. Before now we have had shocks about battles which started very well. But I think there is no doubt that General Rommel and the German forces have suffered an undoubted reverse in this area and these events certainly give a very encouraging indication both of the morale of our troops and of the leadership of General Alexander and General Montgomery, who are now commanding these forces. This, I submit, is no reflection on General Auchinleck. In spite of what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who I am sorry not to see in his place to-day, I still feel that we have no reason in this country to be ashamed of our Generals. But General Auchinleck, as your Lordships know, had borne the burden and the heat of the day during an exceedingly long and difficult period and it is not surprising that he should need a certain amount of rest and refreshment. It is hoped, as the Prime Minister said in another place earlier to-day, that his services will be available to the country later in the war.
The improvement in the position in Egypt and the Western Desert may be said, I think, to apply in some degree to

277
the whole Mediterranean. As your Lordships know, one of the by-products of our retirement in Northern Africa was the increased isolation of Malta. That very staunch fortress became more and more difficult to feed and supply. It is true that we have managed to get through certain convoys in the past, but we did it at the expense of heavy losses. That is not surprising when one considers how close Malta is to the sea and air bases of the enemy. But within the last few weeks, as your Lordships know, by an operation which will, I think, rank very high for courage and heroism in the annals of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Service, however long the history of those two Services may be, and which I think rivals the greatest feats of those Elizabethans of whom we are so proud, assistance has been forced through, in spite of the utmost efforts of the enemy, and there has been given to our troops there, and to the gallant Maltese people, not only the means to defend their shores and maintain the means to sustain life for many months to come, but the ability to continue a vigorous offensive against the lines of communication of the Axis forces. Seldom a day passes but we hear news of some Axis supply ship sunk off the coast of Crete or in the Central Mediterranean, as the result of the offensive efforts of this great fortress.
It was my very good fortune in recent weeks, in fact only just before this convoy arrived, to be able to go myself to Malta. If ever anyone needs a stimulus and an inspiration I strongly advise him to make such a visit as that. It is most moving—the spirit of the people of Malta. It is not merely that they are undefeated, but that they appear to be quite undefeatable. They are entirely serene, they are cheerful and they are confident. In the shattered streets of their towns and along the country roads, shimmering in the summer heat, fringed by oleander trees in blossom, you see people going about their ordinary business and children playing in the sun almost as if times were normal. It is only the drone of the aeroplane engines high in the sky out of sight and the constant rattle of machine-gun fire that make one realize the unceasing battle that is going on. The Maltese people hate the Germans and despise the Italians. What we suffered here for a few months they have been suffering for
278
years; but they have emerged, I can assure your Lordships, triumphant. Whatever may happen in the war one thing is absolutely certain, that the defence of Malta will go down as one of the great epics of history. I would like to pay here a tribute both to the gallant Maltese people and to the troops who are under their Governor, Lord Gort, showing the world of what the human spirit is capable.
But, important though these events in the Mediterranean undoubtedly are, and material though their contribution must be to the final victory, it is not there that the main struggle is being waged at the present time. The focal point of the vast panorama of war exposed before our eyes to-day must inevitably be Russia. When I last addressed your Lordships' House the clouds were gathering and the preparations for the present German offensive were almost completed; but the storm had not yet broken. Now the storm has been raging for over two months. For fourteen weeks the Russians have been sustaining the heaviest assault in the history of war. For both sides this struggle is vital. Neither side can afford to give way easily and as a result, as your Lordships know, every inch of ground has been contested. Under the violent impact of the enemy, supported by every known instrument of war, the Russians have been obliged to retire. They have had to abandon rich provinces; they have been driven in some places across the Don; the Volga is threatened; the Caucasus is threatened. But the main object of Germany clearly was, and clearly must be, to destroy and break up the Russian Armies. Unless they can achieve this object their strategy will not have been successful. So far as one can gather from what information one can obtain, this vital aim they have singularly failed to achieve. Losses on both sides have been heavy. But the Russian Armies are still full of vigour and they are still resisting strongly.
Soon new factors will come into play—first the rains of October and after those rains the Russian winter. The whole world is to-day watching this titanic struggle with bated breath, and our hopes and prayers are with the gallant Russian people in the terrible ordeal through which they are going. It has been our aim to divert in any practical way the forces marshalled against them. No doubt

279
Russia would wish that we had been able to do more—I think most of us wish ourselves that we had been able to do more—but I think it would be a mistake to belittle the contribution which has been made; and there is a tendency to do that. I do not intend this afternoon to say anything about the Second Front, in the ordinary accepted sense of that term. Any statement which I might make here, whatever that statement might be, would tell the Germans things that they are very anxious to know. But this can be said, and I think should be said: there is already in existence a powerful Second Front in the form of our bomber offensive. And this is something which neither we nor others should ignore—in spite of a worse summer, from the point of view of flying weather, than even we in this country often experience, we have continued to strike heavily at the enemy in his own country, in the occupied territories and on the sea.
Tremendous blows have been inflicted on the heart of German productive capacity and on military and naval targets. In the two months of June and July—and I would emphasize these figures—13,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Germany, as against 8,500 tons in the same months of 1941, and 3,500 in June and July, 1940. That, I think your Lordships will agree, is a formidable increase in tonnage of bombs dropped. Moreover, it is accompanied by that greater concentration of effort and that greater accuracy which our ever-growing experience, improved tactics and improved technical developments have brought. This has been achieved in spite—and this is a point which I think it is proper to make—in spite of the ever-increasing demand on the Bomber Command, not only for patrol work and attack over the seas to counter the serious threat which had developed, and still continues, to our communications, but also for the reinforcement of our forces in the Middle East, which has involved the dispatch not only of medium bombers but also of the heavy four-engined bombers which are now operating with great effect against the enemy's supply ports for Libya.
It would, I think, be a great mistake to overestimate the effect of bomber offensive. It equally would be a mistake to underestimate it. One after another the
280
German industrial cities are undergoing a fearful experience. With each great raid the industrial capacity of Germany, temporarily at least, is being reduced. A powerful raid on a key factory has just the same effect on the war as has a battle and the results may be as important. That, I think, was the evidence derived from the raid upon the Renault factory some months ago. Nothing that the Germans can do by their costly and spectacular advances in Russia can be effective in warding off from the German people these blows at their heart—blows which will become more severe and more effective as American production comes into full swing and American squadrons play an increasing part. Both from the strategic and from the psychological point of view the bomber offensive which is being carried out by this country has been a very material contribution to victory. It has imposed a heavy strain upon the German people and it has proved to them how untrustworthy were those promises which were made to them by their leaders in the earlier part of the war. Finally, it has prevented the dispatch of large quantities of aeroplanes and other material from the Western to the Eastern battlefield.
Simultaneously with the bomber offensive, Fighter Command has continued and developed the day offensive against the German Air Force. Their operations consisted, in the first part of the year, of great offensive sweeps in which a marked superiority over the enemy was established, and, more recently, in the provision of escorts for British, and now also for American, bombers attacking vital points. During August they have for the first time been escorting formations of American-manned Fortresses in daylight raids over aerodromes, power stations, and other important targets in France and the Low Countries—raids which, though only on a small scale as yet, have not only been effective in the results achieved, but have given the enemy some inkling of the meaning of that continuous bombing by day and by night which it is our ultimate aim to achieve.
Perhaps at this point I might say a word about the Dieppe raid. The Dieppe raid, as your Lordships' know, was not, as the German propaganda has tried to make out, an attempt at invasion which failed. It was exactly what it purported to be—a raid; just such a raid as we remember in

281
the last war. It was a reconnaissance in force. It was a try-out of our methods of combined operations, and it also aimed at giving direct aid to the Russians by staging a great air battle. We crossed the Channel, we landed troops and material in a strongly defended area. We fought the German planes on equal terms on their own ground, or in their own air, whichever is the correct phrase. What is significant is that it has given the Germans such a shock. That is why, at the present time, their propaganda machine is taking such immense pains to explain away the raid. That also is why we owe such a tremendous debt of gratitude to the brave Canadians and others who took part in the raid.
And while even on this very limited scale by land and air the Allies are returning to the offensive in the West, there is a similar tendency visible in the Far East. The battles of the Coral Sea, the battle of Midway Island, and the American landing in the Solomon Islands, all indicate that the Allies are beginning to show the initiative. The Japanese, who are glutted with success, have, as we all know, many hostages to fortune. They are more than a satisfied nation, they are a nation which, temporarily at any rate, is suffering from indigestion, and the Allies are beginning to take advantage of that uncomfortable condition. At sea, too, the situation is beginning, at least temporarily, to improve. Our shipping losses are less, especially along the East Coast of the United States, where, as noble Lords will know, in the past months they were particularly heavy. Moreover, we are continuing to take toll of U-boats. As the Prime Minister said to-day, the last two months were particularly profitable months. They are in fact the best months we have had. I would not suggest that the battle against the submarines is won, because it is almost certain that the U-boats in service are still increasing in numbers. But then, so is the pace of destruction and so is the pace of American shipbuilding. In this long unceasing contest we are not falling behind, and the heroism of our merchant seamen in the past three years is beginning to bring its reward.
If then, my Lords, I were to try to strike a balance sheet on the last three months, I would say that there is no need for pessimism. If the tide of battle has not turned definitely in our favour,
282
it has certainly not turned against us. The fight as we all know, is likely to be long and arduous yet. But we are still gathering strength. We have an unimpaired spirit and we have powerful Allies. We have added to our Allies in the last week or two in the shape of the great nation of Brazil whom we cordially welcome to our side. We have, above all, in the Prime Minister a leader such as we might have prayed for. We may, I think, enter on the fourth year of the war with sober confidence that the forces of darkness will be finally defeated and that peace and freedom will be restored to the earth.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure that everyone of us will appreciate the statement that the noble Viscount has made and will value the information which it contains. I was not myself made aware beforehand, apart from a short preliminary conversation, of the contents of the statement which the noble Viscount has made. I expect that most of your Lordships are in the same position, and therefore I do not think that we have had time or opportunity to reflect sufficiently upon the statement to enable us to discuss it with profit now. I am sure, however, that every one of us would like to associate himself with what the noble Viscount said about the visit of the Prime Minister to Russia, and to say with what relief we heard the news that he was safely home again. As to the other events to which the noble Viscount has referred, they present so many subjects for question, as well as some for anxiety and some for comfort, that I do not think that a general discussion would be profitable at the present time. Apart from a parenthesis, the noble Viscount omitted one thing from his statement to which I should like to refer. We have all admired and welcomed his journey to Malta, and we are all glad that he has come safely home again. We have all appreciated what he has had to say, but I myself do not propose to initiate any discussion on his statement to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to add a few words to what has been said, and to thank the noble Viscount opposite for the very full manner—though showing, of course, the proper caution of a responsible Minister—in which he has spoken of the general situation. In the first place, we must all agree with what

283
he said with regard to the Prime Minister's visits to Moscow and to Cairo. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of those visits in the particular circumstances, and it is quite evident that nobody else could have carried them out with quite the same effect as did the Prime Minister. His presence in Russia did something to remove the undoubted ignorance of Russian conditions on our part, and probably also some ignorance of British conditions on the part of the Russians, an ignorance which has so long existed, and which must have created a certain difficulty in the relations between the two countries, in spite of our unstinted and generally expressed admiration for the heroic part which the Russian people have played in the defence of their country. There has been much ignorance of Russia in this country, and I imagine that a certain degree of ignorance is bound to continue for a long time. The Russian system of government is absolutely no concern of ours, and we have no reason to discuss it in any way; but it is undoubtedly the case that, within the last three years, the foreign relations of Russia with Finland, with the Baltic States, with Poland and, most of all, with Germany, have remained somewhat of an enigma, and an enigma to which it would be impossible, and I think unprofitable, to attempt to find the answer. I am convinced, therefore, that the personal contact of the Prime Minister with the head of the Russian Government must be altogether productive of good.
Equally, I am sure that the Prime Minister's visit to Cairo was of the greatest value, in enabling him to apprehend at first hand the conditions prevailing in the Middle East, and to see with his experienced eye something of the great difficulties which confront our Armies on the Egyptian frontier. It must also have been of great advantage to him to have a conversation with General Smuts, the most experienced, and I venture to say the most distinguished, military figure in any country in the world. It is quite unnecessary, I think, to attempt to make any sort of comment on what the noble Viscount said about the situation in Russia, except once more to express our admiration for the marvellous resistance which the Russians have shown. Nor, I think, would there be any advantage in attempting to discuss the situation in the
284
Far East, except to note that the pressure exercised by the United States is obviously beginning to be seriously felt by the Japanese, and must have begun to make them consider that things in their area are by no means plain sailing, as they evidently hoped would be the case.
I cannot help feeling that a certain degree of disappointment and disillusion must have been caused by the extreme productivity which Germany has shown in the matter of armaments and munitions of all kinds. It seems to show, for one thing, the singularly full use which the Germans must be making of the slave labour which they have collected from the various occupied countries, and which has evidently freed their own men for fighting purposes to an extent which must create some degree of disappointment in our minds. There is also, I think, a feeling of disappointment at the extent to which the Axis Forces in Libya have been able to be increased to the very formidable position which they have reached, both in numbers of troops and in the supply of tanks and other motorized vehicles—an extent which we may be almost able to equal but not, I am afraid, at present greatly to surpass. So far as the Air Force are concerned, I think we may be satisfied at what is evidently fair equality in numbers but undoubtedly superiority in the quality of our Air Force in Africa.
That increase, as I say, must be something of a disappointment to British observers. But I am sure it would not be right to blame the military, the Navy, or the Air Force for the fact that they have not been able altogether to stop the great influx of men and munitions, both German and Italian, to the African coast. But we have to consider what would have happened if it had not been possible for our Fleet and our Air Force to take the toll that they have of the Axis transports: just in the same way as, in considering the bombing attacks on Germany, we have to think what the position would have been if, as people sometimes have attempted to argue, they had been employed elsewhere and if the German centres of production had had an absolutely free hand in turning out tanks, aeroplanes and munitions of all kinds. I think we can look forward now with a considerable degree of confidence. Winter is not very far off, and I am convinced that the United Nations are in a far better

285
position to face the winter, both morally and materially, than the Axis Powers of Germany and Italy.

SECOND FRONT: A B.B.C. BROADCAST.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the publicity given by the British Broadcasting Corporation to the meeting held in Trafalgar Square on Sunday afternoon, 26th July, at which views were expressed that "operations on a Second Front should be started without delay, and that the people of Britain were angry that this had not already been done"; to point out the damage likely to accrue to the Allied cause by such irresponsible statements, made without any exact knowledge of the true position; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want it to be distinctly understood that this is a perfectly friendly Motion. I think that when a member of this House feels that certain Government Departments are doing anything that is unwise, it is his duty to raise the question here and have it debated. The broadcast to which I refer in my Motion is typical of others—unwise and, I think, wanting in judgment. This is not my view only: it is an opinion I have heard from many sources throughout the country. During the period of the war the B.B.C. is undoubtedly an off-shoot of the Ministry of Information. The Minister himself has said that he is responsible. That being so, what is the inference that can be drawn from this broadcast of the passing in a haphazard manner of a resolution highly critical of the Government in regard to the question of the Second Front, and from the great publicity given to it by the B.B.C.? It must not be forgotten that when you broadcast, you broadcast not only to this country but to the world, and everything that is said over the air from here is picked up all over the world. It must be remembered also that we are supposed to be absolutely united in this country—Parliament and all the political Parties, with the people strongly behind us.
Here was a meeting called on a Sunday afternoon by certain Members of Parliament and others who were completely ignorant—or ought to have been—of any
286
knowledge that would justify them in expressing an opinion on this most important problem. I do not believe, and have never heard anyone with real knowledge of the feeling of the people in this country say, that the people of this country are angry because a Second Front has not been started, but what I have heard, and what no doubt your Lordships will agree with, is that we are ail most anxious that the earliest possible opportunity should be taken to do more to help not only ourselves but our gallant Allies, the Russians, the Chinese, and all the others who, like ourselves, are very hard pressed all the time, and have been in the past.
One thing seems to be quite certain, and that is that our Allies do not wish us to embark on a venture of this kind unless we here feel, and they also feel, that there is a reasonable chance of success. Only the War Cabinet, after the closest possible consideration with their military advisers, can decide when this should take place. This is not a political operation, this is a military operation; and here were a lot of irresponsible people gathered together in critical mood in Trafalgar Square. It is quite easy to get a crowd in Trafalgar Square, particularly if there are a few tub-thumpers about, and when they have shouted themselves hoarse, no doubt they can get any sort of resolution passed, or say they have got it passed. On that particular point I received a letter this morning from a very reputable source and I propose to read a sentence or two from it. This person was at the meeting in Trafalgar Square, and this is what I am told:
"I noticed that a large number of men, roughly, I should think, four-fifths, did not even take their pipes out of their mouths and therefore they could not have voted. Thereafter I watched most closely and mentally noted individuals in groups nearer at hand, and was confirmed in my opinion. You will realize that I am merely recording my impression of this scene. And there is one quite certain point: 60,000 did not vote for a Second Front, as was stated."
That was written to me by somebody who happened to notice a mention in the Press that I was bringing this Motion forward to-day.
I wonder what would have happened if this question—a very simple one—had been put to this vast gathering: "Do you wish these people who have been talking to us to-day, or the Government, to make a decision on this important

287
matter?" Also I should like this question put to Mr. Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek and all our other Allies. I am quite certain the answer would be, "The Government, please, but as soon as they can manage it." There is no necessity whatever for these meetings, and somehow or other I cannot but think that there is some political purpose behind them. Certainly the B.B.C. should have other things to do far more useful than reporting a meeting of this nature. I hope the Minister of Information, who is making a very good job of a very difficult Department, will tighten up the censorship on the reporting of meetings of this kind. The Ministry of Information is entirely a war effort, and the B.B.C. in my view should be exactly the same in war. Just imagine what Goebbels could make out of this meeting—"Churchill losing his grip on the Government. The Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. advertise hostile meeting." I can imagine our Allies saying to themselves, "What on earth is happening in Britain to-day?" I say to the Minister, "Do try and stop this irresponsible sniping at the Government by people who are quite ignorant of the subject of this meeting."
In my view a great step could be taken to help the war effort if the B.B.C. were to be a little less political-minded and a great deal more national-minded. We must not forget that the B.B.C. is a monopoly. It is the greatest instrument in the country to influence public opinion and disturb the emotions of the people. We have no choice as to what is or is not in the news. Moreover, the Ministerial responsibility for the B.B.C. inevitably gives to every talk and discussion on the air an official impression, however irresponsible and ill-informed it may be. That is particularly serious in cases of statements and views in discussions which appear impossible to censor and cannot be contradicted. One more point I want to make. There is no doubt that, no matter how hard the Ministry of Information and the Governors try, there is a great preponderance of Socialist propaganda. I should take just as much exception to it if it were Conservative or Liberal. That is undesirable, and I feel that to-day we must try as much as we can to get a real spirit of fraternity amongst us all. I do not think that this undoubted bias in a certain political direction in the B.B.C.
288
lends itself to good feeling. May I suggest that in the case of the Brains Trust, before it resumes its mental gymnastics in the autumn, the Governors of the B.B.C. should lay it down emphatically that no one known to be a propagandist of any political Party, or to hold any strong political views, should be a permanent member of it? If this is done, it will help towards a general feeling of fraternity and good will amongst the people of the country. I hope that what I have said will be taken note of by the Minister and that something will be done in the direction I have indicated. I beg to move for Papers.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I gladly undertake to see that the remarks of my noble friend are duly conveyed to the Minister of Information. At the same time I hope he will forgive my saying that I think he has endeavoured to whip up a rather large storm in a very small teacup. The incident of which my noble friend complains, as I understand it, was simply this, that on Sunday, July 26, there was a large meeting at Trafalgar Square, urging the establishment of a Second Front, and that this was reported in the news bulletin of the B.B.C. My noble friend's strictures on the futility of the amateur strategist, whether in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere, laying down military policy without any knowledge of the facts, were very well-deserved; but the business of the B.B.C. is to report the news. In the news broadcast that night this meeting was mentioned in a couple of sentences describing what had taken place. I do not quite agree with my noble friend when he complains about this, because it is the duty of the British Broadcasting Corporation to give an absolutely unbiased and truthful account of the day's news in its evening bulletin. Whether the event was of any importance or not, whether the speeches at this particular meeting were wise or not, some people might have thought, if no reference to this meeting had been made, that there had been on the part of the B.B.C. an attempt to suppress the fact that such a meeting had taken place. That would have been a great deal more unfortunate than any ill that could have come from mentioning the fact that such a meeting had taken place. I do not, however, think that any ill did come.

289
My noble friend in his speech did not mention the fact that in the same broadcast immediately after the report of the Trafalgar Square meeting had been given, the announcer went on to give another piece of information and to report another meeting, and that was a meeting addressed by the Minister of Labour and National Service. This is what the bulletin went on to say:
"At Pontypool a member of the Government, Mr. Ernest Bevin, told people who were agitating for a Second Front—'You are feeding Hitler and Goebbels. By creating a division in the country our friends, of the Left who shout this slogan are creating the very condition we all want to avoid.' Mr. Bevin said that as a member of the Cabinet he could not enter into any discussion on strategy but went on: No one is a greater friend of Russia than I, and I beg those claiming to be her special friends not to try and force a reply on one issue which might be a great contributory issue but is not the only one and is not the only way to win the war'."
Therefore those who listened to that particular news bulletin could not possibly have got the impression (in whatever country they lived) that there was a unanimous demand in this country for a Second Front. I think that the British Broadcasting Corporation in reporting both these meetings, where contrary opinions were expressed, was doing no more than reporting the truth.
It is very important that the B.B.C. should continue to report facts impartially. I wonder if your Lordships fully realize the great reputation that the British broadcasts have on the Continent of Europe and throughout the world for truth. That is one of the most powerful weapons that we have in our propaganda armoury. Accordingly, I hope that my noble friend will not object to any broadcast which merely relates facts. Facts ought to be broadcast and any attempt to suppress facts would at once reduce the reputation and authority of our national broadcast. It is most important that that reputation should be preserved.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very clear reply. He will excuse me if I do not agree with him. I should have thought that the reason he gave was a still further reason why the broadcast should not have been made. But we will agree to differ on that. I hope the noble Earl will convey the latter part of my speech in regard to the Brains Trust to the Minister because I really think
290
that that is very important. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MERCANTILE MARINE AWARDS.
LORD MARCHWOOD LORD MARCHWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the present position in respect of decorations and awards for gallantry to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name with the object of drawing attention to the unsatisfactory position of the Mercantile Marine in regard to awards and decorations for gallantry at sea, in the hope that this House will be the instrument which will persuade the Government to alter the present position so that these men will have their deeds and services recognized in an appropriate manner. To my mind there are two ways of doing this, neither of which in my opinion would present insuperable difficulties, and either of which would give the greatest satisfaction to the men of the Merchant Service. Moreover, both would have the effect of doing away with the differentiation and invidious distinction which is now made between the two Navies. At the beginning of the war we heard a tremendous amount of talk about equality of sacrifice, and my object to-day is to get the Government to link up equality of sacrifice with equality of reward. That has been denied, and is still being denied, to the men of the Merchant Service.
Early in the war it was decided that war service in the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets should be recognized by civil awards unless the ship was operating with or under the direct orders of the Royal Navy, when its crew would then be eligible for naval awards. The idea in the mind of the Government at that time was that nothing should be done which could lend colour to the suggestion that armed merchantmen or defensively equipped merchantmen were part of the Armed Forces of the Crown. It was felt that the men serving in these vessels should not be placed in a position where they could be treated as francs-tireurs or be looked upon as combatants masquerading as seamen, and it was felt that the fact that they were receiving civilian decora-

291
tions for even defensive action would be proof to the enemy that they had true civilian status. Unfortunately, that decision no longer applies to the altered circumstances of to-day. These men are now fighting the enemy every day and every hour and every minute of the day. They were the first who were attacked in the war. They are, in fact, facing the same risks and perils with the same courage and devotion to duty as are the officers and men of the Royal Navy. They are in every way complementary to the Royal Navy, and for that reason I feel they should receive the same awards for gallantry.
The Government are aware that the decision no longer protects the merchant seamen from the ruthless and brutal ferocity of the Nazis, and that no special consideration is given them if they are taken prisoner by any of the Axis Powers. On May 27 I wrote in my official capacity as Master of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners to the responsible Treasury official asking that favourable consideration might be given to the question of officers and men of the Merchant Navy being eligible for naval awards. At the same time I was asked to make representations that the Government might reconsider the award of the O.B.E. (Civil Division) to the captain of the "Sydney Star."
The "Sydney Star," a vessel which was bound for Malta in convoy, carrying troops and munitions, was attacked by the enemy in the middle of the night, shelled and torpedoed and so badly damaged that she was in grave danger of foundering. The captain gave orders to disembark the troops by the lifeboats. It was found that only three of the davits were working, the others having been shelled away. He then signalled to the destroyer escorting the convoy and asked that she would come alongside and disembark the troops. This was done and 484 officers and other ranks were disembarked as well as part of his own crew. The vessel was listing heavily and making water very fast. The pumps could not cope with it. He had 30 feet of water in No. 3 hold. The captain was asked to leave his ship, but he said "No, I will stand by her with the crew I have, and endeavour to reach port."
Next morning, at daylight, going along at a very reduced speed, owing to the heavy list—she had 16 feet of water in No. 1 hold, 8 feet in No. 2 hold and 50 feet in No. 3 hold—she was again attacked by torpedo-carrying 'planes and Stuka dive-bombers. The captain, with the men from below decks and the few of the crew who were left, manned the guns and fought them away. They struggled on and at last the "Sydney Star" limped into Malta. The Governor of Malta wrote congratulating the captain on his marvellous seamanship, his courage and his devotion to duty, and expressed grateful admiration of the excellent work which had saved his ship and brought the cargo to port. The liaison officer on board, in his report to the Vice-Admiral, Malta, spoke of the marvellous endurance of the captain who had been on his legs for three days and nights without sleeping, and for twelve days continually alert on the bridge. He said he could not praise too highly the courage and devotion to duty of the captain, and the captain said that great credit was due to his officers and men that the ship reached port.
Awards were given for this stirring adventure. The officer commanding the destroyer rightly got the D.S.O., because when he was disembarking the troops E-boats were circling round in search of the vessel. The captain of the "Sydney Star" got the O.B.E. (Civil Division). I ask your Lordships, do you feel that that is equal treatment and just recognition of these gallant services? I hope man}' of your Lordships heard on the radio that dramatic description by Commander Kimmins the other day of how another convoy, in face of the most violent attacks from sea and air, fought its way through the Mediterranean, and the epic story of Captain Dudley Mason, of the "Ohio," a tanker which was torpedoed and bombed and set on fire. Yet she went on to the end and limped into port, having saved probably the most valuable cargo in the convoy. That armada of warships and merchantmen was manned by men fired by a single purpose and determination—namely, to defeat the enemy and reach their goal. Bravery such as that is really and truly wonderful, and I want to see these men properly rewarded. To say that the bravery of such men is properly recognized by giving them civil awards is making a mockery of the whole system of awards for gallantry, and

293
I sincerely hope that the Minister will tell us to-day that the Government have made up their minds, or will make up their minds, that there shall be a change.
After waiting for two months for a reply to the letter which I wrote to the responsible Treasury official, I got my answer. The first half of the letter formulated the reasons why the decision to which I referred in the opening part of my speech was taken in the early part of the war. The second half was a typical example of Whitehall ingenuity in ignoring the facts and refusing to face up to the issue. I would like to read it with your Lordships' permission. It states:
"The legal aspect was examined and it was thought that the special position of merchant seamen as civilians might be jeopardized by a change, and their status impaired. But even if this were not so, it is thought that the events of this war, at any rate, have shown that there are no proper grounds for considering a civil decoration as per se less in value than a military one, and it is thought that to make any change now in the Merchant Navy would be to give currency to this mistaken view. It would, moreover not only be unfair to other civilians who receive civil decorations for gallantry in defence, but would be grossly unjust to the many officers and men of the Merchant Navy who have already received decorations, and whose gallantry thus recognized has already greatly raised the prestige of civil awards, if by a change now official sanction were given to the view that civil decorations are of an inferior class."
From this your Lordships will see that the Treasury official still argues that merchant seamen are civilians and that the Merchant Navy is not part of the Armed Forces of the Crown.
To show your Lordships the confusion of thought on this subject I will now quote what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport said in another place not long ago, when he was speaking on the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bill. He said
"it was because the Merchant Navy was regarded as an Armed Force—because it was felt that it was not possible to make a distinction between the treatment of the Royal Navy and the merchant ships—that the Merchant Navy was treated as a Service and the Navy scale applied to the Merchant Navy."
There you have authority speaking with two voices: on the one hand the Civil Service saying that it is not an Armed Force and that there must be differentiation in awards; and on the other the Minister saying that it is an Armed Service and therefore there must be no difference in pension scales. It is not for me
294
to decide which view is correct, but I prefer to take the statement of the Minister, seeing that it is backed up by Act of Parliament.
I will give your Lordships yet another ministerial statement, made by Mr. Attlee, the Deputy Prime Minister, in another place on April 9, 1941. He said that the men of the Merchant Navy were eligible for military awards when serving under the orders of the Royal Navy, as in the operations at Dunkirk, for which a number of military awards was made to the Service. That surely is a conclusive reason why the Government should agree to the request I am making to-day. Surely the work of the men who took ships to Malta in face of enemy attack from the air and on the sea, is comparable in daring with the deeds of the men who went across the Channel to bring home the British soldiers from Dunkirk—just as gallant and daring. If military decorations were given for that work which was done at Dunkirk, why cannot they be given for the work done by the men who went to Malta? The Government admitted that they were deserving of military decorations then: how can they justify refusal of military decorations now? They have done it once and they should continue doing it.
The Government have had to reverse many decisions made in the early days of the war, and it is indefensible that this particular decision should have been allowed to perpetuate a manifest injustice to a great Service. The contention that to make the suggested change would be grossly unjust to the many officers and men of the Merchant Navy whose gallantry has already been recognized by civil awards carries no weight with me, and I am sure that it carries none with others among your Lordships. I suggest that these men who since the war began on September 3, 1939, have received British Empire awards should be transferred to the Military Division for valour instead of being retained in the Civil Division, where the awards are more or less for good behaviour. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take note of my request in this direction.
The next thing that is said is that if a change were made now it would give currency to the opinion that civil awards were of less value than military awards. That view is bound to be held if the acts which

295
earn many of the civil awards are not considered comparable in daring and gallantry with those for which military awards are given. A man can sit in his office for ten years, doing good service to the State and very possibly he will, get a high award in the Civil Division. But these awards are not at all comparable. There is no suggestion that naval men should be given civil awards; therefore the only fair way to my mind of adjusting this anomaly and of doing away with this differentiation is to give the Merchant Navy men naval awards. This ridiculous differentiation is not confined to the Services only; it often happens on the same ship. Most of the merchant ships have gunners from the Royal Navy and the gun crews consist of men of the Merchant Service. The officer in command of the vessel, the man who directs when the gun should be fired, and what action generally should be taken by the ship, is an officer of the Merchant Service. If some specially meritorious work is done by these men working together which is deemed to merit the award of decorations, the men of the merchant crew get civil awards and so does the officer, while the naval gunner gets a naval award. That is not logical.
Those who desire the change I advocate are not so much concerned with the relative merits of civil and military awards. What they are concerned with is to see that men who do the same service under the same conditions, who face the same perils, should have the same awards whatever they are. I think that that would be the fairest method. As an old sailor I would sooner have preference given to my first suggestion than to the other. It is begging the question to pretend that there is no soreness of heart over this differentiation. There is a great deal. A very outstanding merchant officer said the other day: "When we go into action the last things we think about are awards. But if all they can offer is an O.B.E. (Civil Division) I personally would be strongly inclined to refuse it. "Well, it is a very-sad state of affairs that such a feeling should prevail among that noble body of men. I am sure that the Minister of War Transport, whose heart is for the men just as much as mine is—I know him quite well and I have talked to him about these things—will do this if he can.
296
I ask him to-day with all the force at my command that he will give this his most favourable consideration.
It is unfortunate that comparisons should be made between the status of civil awards and military awards, but the responsibility belongs to the Government. The Government are responsible because of their unfair discrimination against merchant seamen. However, I will not take up any more of your Lordships' time on this matter. I will only add that I feel very acutely on the subject, and I know that all of you believe that these men are deserving of the change for which we are now asking. I sincerely hope that the Government will take immediate action so that we can prove to these men, who are in the front line of battle in the Atlantic and throughout the seven seas, that the country wishes to recognize their gallantry and valour in a manner befitting the great services they have rendered and are rendering to the Allied cause. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise to give all the support I can to the Motion which has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Marchwood. It is very appropriate that the Master of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners should bring this subject to your Lordships' notice, and I think that in doing so he has performed both a national service and a great service to the Merchant Navy. He has put his case before you with force and eloquence and I feel quite sure that he has the sympathy of the majority of your Lordships, for this House just before the Recess gave a very emphatic decision which showed how very much they disliked this discrimination. In that case there was discrimination between men of the Royal Navy and men of the Merchant Navy. Here is a case where you have men who are virtually in the same service in many instances and yet differentiation is made in the matter of awards for gallantry. Lord Marchwood spoke to you upon the facts of this question. He pointed out that Merchant Navy officers and men are entitled to naval decorations if the work that they were doing at the time the decorations were earned was done under the direct command of naval officers, but that they only get civil decorations if they were working on their own and shouldering

297
the whole of the responsibility. So you get this anomaly, that if you have officers and men in the: Merchant Navy acting under naval orders—that is, receiving the benefit of expert advice—and not having to take responsibility themselves, they get naval decorations; but if they are on their own and are carrying out a naval operation, such as fighting their ship, without expert advice, they are only eligible for civil decorations.
Nothing that I say is intended to cast the slightest reflection on civil decorations. But do let us, for military deeds, give military decorations, and for civil service. give civil decorations. It has been said that it would not be fair to civilians who display gallantry in the civil defence of their towns and their homes and their families to give military decorations to merchant seamen because in normal times the merchant seamen are civilians. As my noble friend has said, the case is entirely different. When the merchant seaman steams out of harbour, leaves the protection of these islands and goes out into the seas where he knows he will be attacked, where he will have the responsibility not primarily for his own benefit of carrying those cargoes which are essential to the country, the national war effort and the war effort of the United Nations, that is not static defence; it is most aggressive. They go out with a determination to force their cargo through, in spite of anything that the enemy can do.
They are very much in the front line, because, in the naval war, merchant sailors and the ships in which they serve are the principal objectives of the enemy, and it is the honour of the Royal Navy to try to protect the Merchant Navy from the attacks of the enemy. It cannot be said that when merchant seamen go out from the ports of this country to Malta or to the Arctic they are engaged in trading. They are Government servants. They are acting under Government orders, and they cannot leave their employment should they wish to do so. They are just as much Government servants as are sailors in the Royal Navy. When they are ordered to go to Malta, or wherever it may be, they do so knowing that they win have to fight hard to get their cargo through, and that many of their ships will not reach their destination. Is that peaceful trading? Do the Germans consider, if these men get
298
through to Malta or to Murmansk, that they are civilian sailors, and must be treated as such?
It has been said that it is some protection to these merchant seamen to be treated as civilians in the matter of decorations. I am sure that the merchant seamen do not want that kind of protection, even if it were any use to them, which of course it is not. They believe themselves to be, and they are, first-class fighting men, and they want to share in the rewards of success or in whatever treatment failure may bring with those who, with them, have the honour of maintaining our position at sea. Whatever the present regulations may be, upon whatever good reasons they may have been founded in the first place, recent experiences have shown that the work of maintaining our sea communications makes it necessary to overhaul those regulations and bring them up to date. I do submit that these men, who. are fighting sailors, should receive the same decorations as naval officers and men. The nation, by accepting this proposal, could acknowledge the debt which it owes to the Merchant Navy. If this concession is given, and if these men are allowed to receive the same decorations as the Royal Navy, then, although I am "on the shelf" and cannot speak as a rule for what the Navy thinks, in this case I shall be on firm ground in saying that no one will be more happy than their admiring colleagues of the Royal Navy. Finally, I should like to urge that, when these decorations are given, they should be given on the same scale as would be the case in the Royal Navy—that is to say, that the junior officers, junior engineers and men on the lower deck should get the same sort of scale of rewards as the personnel of a destroyer or submarine who have distinguished themselves. This overdue measure would be very well received if it came from your Lordships' House.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I wish to intervene for one moment only, as President of the Institute of Marine Engineers, to say that I know that the engineering branch of the Royal Navy is in entire sympathy with the merchant engineering branch in asking that the merchant seamen should have the same kind of awards as the men of the Navy. If I may say so, I think that all of us who have listened to this debate must

299
agree that the noble and gallant Earl has blown the official arguments sky-high. There is not one particle of argument left. I wish only to say, on behalf of the marine engineers, that I support the request which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, and by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I do not know which Minister is going to reply, or whether the reply will be made on behalf of the Admiralty or on behalf of the Ministry of War Transport; but whoever replies is going to be in an exceedingly difficult position, because both his flanks have been turned, one by the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, who speaks with great authority for the Merchant Navy, and the other by the noble and gallant Earl, who suddenly, from out of the blue, supported the noble Lord in a speech which was so over-powering that I should not myself like to be in the Minister's shoes. I rise to speak because for many years I had the honour of representing Wallasey, an area which supplies very many merchant seamen. It is one of the great privileges of the procedure of this House, as compared with that of another place, that we can raise a delicate subject like that of decorations, which in no circumstances of order could be raised in another place at all; and, although in these days of economy we shall not get the Papers which are demanded, nevertheless we shall have some interesting remarks made upon the general subject.
Frankly, I have always felt that little imagination has been exercised on the question of decorations. Take, for example, the decorations in the Army, and the general mix-up there between awards for gallantry and awards for Staff service, which is very remarkable. I have always thought that the Victoria Cross for great gallantry and the Military Cross for lesser gallantry should be awarded, and on the Staff side, where decorations are no less wanted and where services are just as important, there might be the D.S.O. and the C.M.G. I myself was given, for Staff work, and much to my annoyance, the Military Cross. In the Royal Flying Corps of those days, a Military Cross meant nothing else but that one had brought down a Hun, and I had not done that; consequently I refused to put up my
300
Military Cross. My General was a very fierce man—you would hardly recognize him as the benevolent noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—and he sent for me and, before I could explain my very subtle point, said, "Put it up within two days." That was the end of that; I was never able to put my point before him. It is somewhat late, but I should like to do so now, and it is a great disappointment to me that he is not here.
Imagination is needed in connexion with these awards, because people do appreciate them more than is sometimes thought. It seems to me that the case for the Admiralty has gone altogether, because they have said "We will give these awards to sailors in the Merchant Navy when under Admiralty orders." When are they not under Admiralty orders today? Does a convoy sail at any time which is not under Admiralty orders? The idea that because they are engaged in defensive fighting rather than offensive fighting there should be a discrimination in the matter of awards seems to me something which cannot be upheld in any way. I sincerely hope that the Minister, after these overwhelming arguments from at any rate three of us, will give way suitably.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to add a few words from the aspect not of somebody who has any special marine knowledge but of somebody who is a mere landsman, but who is desirous of supporting the claims of these merchant seamen, for whom this House has more than once expressed the very greatest sympathy and admiration during the present war. I cannot understand why there should be any doubt at all on this matter. The only argument that I have heard is contained in a Treasury letter which has been read by my noble friend, and it is that those who have received decorations of a civil character in this war may feel somewhat aggrieved if others receive decorations of the naval character which is now advocated so powerfully on both sides of this House. If that is all, it should be as easy as possible not only to give the more appropriate decorations during this war in future but also to offer those who have received civil decorations in the present war, and who are entitled to something better, an opportunity of changing the old decoration for the new one. It seems to me that there should be no difficulty at all in carrying that out.

301
What seems to me so impossible to justify is the treatment of people in the marine service who are undertaking the same, or even in some respects greater, risks as naval persons, who are travelling in ships that are armed, whose duty it is to light the enemy when they are attacked, who in every respect except that of being enlisted as members of the Navy, or receiving His Majesty's Commission if they are officers, are acting as combatants. And the suggestion that they should not receive the same award as combatants because that puts them under a certain amount of risk with the enemy is, I venture to think, wholly and entirely unfounded.
When we come to the actions of the Hun when he meets a merchant vessel, I am perhaps as well able as anybody in this House to express an opinion, because I have made a special study of that question. And it is idle to think that the Hun does anything but shoot down or destroy such a vessel without notice, or that he will give any consideration to it because the crew does not actually happen to be clad in naval uniform. All that has gone by the board, because we know that the German sea captain acts like a pirate if he comes across a British vessel. Accordingly, I strongly support the arguments that have been put forward, both from the naval, the military, and the layman's point of view, and I would suggest that it is impossible at this date to deprive the merchant seaman of these very much more pleasant and dignified orders or medals which he seeks to obtain. I only add this, that for my part I am all the more anxious to support the claims of the merchant seamen because I am well aware from previous debates in this House that they lead a most unhealthy existence, that they are not only running extreme dangers on the high seas when they meet an enemy, but that their life on board ship is one of constant trial under most unhealthy conditions, and that anything that can be done for them of a reasonable nature should be done, to keep them not only satisfied as to their conditions, but full of confidence that the ration appreciates the great service that they are rendering in the present war.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, it may seem that after the powerful broadsides that have been fired at the Minister this afternoon it is quite unnecessary for
302
anyone to loose off another gun. I do not altogether intend to do so either, but I did raise this very question a year ago. as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will remember, because he interposed some very wise remarks at the time from the point of view that the whole system on which we have based our rewards for gallantry to the Merchant Navy is founded on the false principle that has been mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, namely, that if only you call the merchant seaman a civilian he is safe—the German will be so impressed by the fact that he is a civilian that he will leave him alone and treat him as he has treated all the rest of the civilians—as civilians. And we all know what the German opinion is as to how to treat civilians. But that argument—which was used, I may say in deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said, not so much by the Admiralty, but by those who in general deal with honours in this country—is a false one altogether, and it is one which ought to have been thrown overboard early in the war. It is quite natural perhaps that after the practices adopted in the last war, which gave general satisfaction, we should have started in this war on the same lines. But it soon became evident that the strain and the test which the Merchant Navy was going to be put to were going to be far greater than they have ever been in our national history, and that therefore a new era was coming which demanded that a change be made.
It is always difficult to make such a change—to change the type of decorations given for gallantry to a great Service. And that is why I want to say, having something to do with the awards for civil gallantry, that I think we should be very careful that nothing is said—quite apart from nothing being done—which will give the impression that any of your Lordships feels that the gallantry awards which His Majesty has set up for the reward of civilians are in any way less honourable or less to be proud of than any award given to a soldier, a sailor or an airman. You cannot in any way compare, excepting on an equal status, the V.C. and the G.C., or the George Medal and the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal. It is very difficult when you start on the lines that there are a great many civilian decorations which are given for purely sedentary

303
work in an office, of great value and importance over a long period of years. Thus an officer in the Navy who has rarely had an opportunity of any particularly gallant service—there may have been a long period of peace—may get the K.C.B. for long and meritorious service and devotion to professional duty. You cannot look on a civil decoration, which is given for gallantry but which is also given for service of another nature, as being therefore lowered in value.
I do not know what the opinion of the Merchant Navy is—I find it very difficult to find out—but I am sure that the Navy feels that when a Service like the Mercantile Marine is fighting day by day and night by night alongside its comrades of the Royal Navy, it is wrong that there should any longer be any hiding behind the old precept that the merchant seaman is not a fighting man but a civilian. That idea should be thrown overboard to-day, whatever International Law on the subject may be—International Law is now a dead letter in most respects, if not all—because there is no doubt that to-day the merchant seaman should be considered as a fighting man. You then have to consider whether you will give him naval decorations, and I am quite sure that the idea put forward by the noble Lord who moved this Motion, that he should be given naval decorations, is correct. But it is possible that the change from one to the other may be difficult, because a great many merchant seamen have already got civilian decorations. One docs not want men to think—and they should not think—that these civilian decorations are not ones of which they may be thoroughly proud. There are occasions in the combination at sea between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy when the nature of the gallantry performed by these two Services—say, two ships, one under the orders of the other or in touch with the other—is so exactly alike that the awards given to both should be similar. In other words, it would be more appropriate in certain circumstances for the merchant seaman to get naval decorations.
If it was accepted that in certain circumstances the operation on which the merchant seaman is employed is absolutely analogous to that of his comrade in the Navy, then surely that would be a proper occasion for giving honours of a
304
naval character. It would not involve the great difficulty of considering, if you make the complete change, whether those who have already got civilian decorations should have them changed to naval ones. Whatever decision is made, I am quite certain that this House would be profoundly unhappy, as I am sure would the Service to which I have the honour to belong, if the present situation were allowed to continue as it is. It wants changing, and I am sure it can be changed. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who is going to reply will accept the fact that it should be changed, and I dare say he will have some remedy which will commend itself to your Lordships' House.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, before the Minister replies may I remind him that there is a precedent to meet the one difficulty that has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet who has just spoken? In the last war there was instituted the Order of the British Empire. When it was first instituted it was a single Order, and it was described as a civil Order. It was given to a great number of soldiers and to representatives of the other Services. After a time it was felt to be inappropriate that those who were doing Service duty only should be in possession of what has been described as a civil decoration. Accordingly, the Military Division was instituted, and it was made retrospective. Anybody who had already received that award was allowed to change to the Military Division. I can see no reason whatever why that precedent should not be followed, It would meet the one difficulty which has been mentioned, and supply the Treasury official with what he desires above all in these matters—namely, a precedent for making the change.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I intervene for a few moments only because I have received a letter from Captain Coombs, one of the Joint General Managers of the Officers' (Merchant Navy) Federation. That Federation is, I believe, a powerful organization which represents with ability and considerable. success a great number of the captains and officers of the Merchant Navy, and your Lordships would feel it only right that the views of this Federation should be before the House whilst this matter is

305
being debated. Captain Coombs writes to say:
"There may be something in the suggestion, although Merchant Navy opinion is divided on it.… Our view is formed on what we believe to be a matter of high principle and a question of good taste. The grant of honours and awards is surely a matter solely for the Royal Prerogative.… We are certain teat it is not the wish of the Merchant Navy that any suggestions on this matter should be put forward as from the Merchant Navy.… It seems that the very last quarter from which suggestions re Merchant Navy honours should emanate is the Service itself.…
"I have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the National Union of Seamen, so am unable to say what their view would be."
Captain Coombs then asks me to be good enough to express the views held by the Federation as he feels strongly that any suggestion on this matter should certainly not emanate from the Service, "even supposing it is proper for it to be raised by outside friends of the Service." He adds that he makes these remarks with great deference, and concludes by saying:
"While Merchant Navy officers are, of course, grateful for the expression of Royal approbation by the grants of awards and honours, the two chief concerns to-day are:—(1) that the Service has sufficient of the best designed and built ships possible with which to carry on its war duties, and (2) that it will be assured of a square deal after the war."
Whether that letter be agreed with or not, it does at any rate reflect the spirit of moderation which animates the officers of the Merchant Navy.
I need not say that this is not a Party matter in any way. This letter is not put forward as representing the views of the Party with which I am associated, nor do I put it forward as expressing my own views. The part which I should endorse is the concluding part referring to the need for the best designed ships with which to carry on the war duties of the Merchant Navy, and to ensuring a square deal after the war. In that respect may I say that the Merchant Navy may look forward with great confidence to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers? From all that comes to my knowledge from the Merchant Navy, they feel confident that their interests are in good hands, and that they have received substantial advantages since the noble Lord has held his present office. If I may express my personal opinion it is this—nothing is too good for the officers and men of the Merchant Navy. If it were
306
decided to give them more or higher honours than they now enjoy, no one would rejoice more sincerely than I would. These men show what is the highest form of courage—not the courage shown in the heat of action, when men's blood is up, but the courage shown in cold blood. Whilst their ships are in the danger zone they literally never know from one second to another when an attack may come which will sink their ships under their feet and perhaps cast them adrift in open boats in bad weather hundreds of miles from land.
What is very much in my mind is this. Hitler from the very outbreak of this war has made no secret of the fact that he relies upon the weapon of starvation to beat us to our knees. To bring that about, his first object had to be to try to break the nerve of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy so that they would not take their ships to sea. To that end he has given the German Admiralty deliberate orders to employ every form of barbarism, savagery, and calculated brutality against these men. And yet that campaign has failed completely. The nerve of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy has stood firm and will continue to do so. The country can safely rely upon them to continue to perform those duties upon which our hopes of victory rest. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, speaking to-day, said something about the Elizabethans. Knowing this Motion was coming on, that reference made me think of that great roll of names of naval heroes which has come down to us from the Elizabethan age. These names come down to us like a roll of drums and through the haze of time these great sea heroes appear as very picturesque and very romantic figures. There may be nothing very romantic or picturesque about the men of the Marcantile Marine, or the ships with which they go to sea, but it can be truly said that no braver men have ever sailed from the harbours of our countries than they, and I repeat that nothing could be too good for them.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a few minutes only in this debate. I was very much struck by the speech of Lord Chatfield, Admiral of the Fleet. Lord Chatfield was, I believe—I do not know whether he still is—the judge of those who are entitled

307
to civil awards for civil defence bravery. I am sure every one who has had a civil reward for bravery will be grateful to Lord Chatfield for his defence of the honour of a civil award, and those who have been given the O.B.E. and George Medal and all those who have received civil decorations for gallantry and saving life on land will be most grateful to him for what he has said. I think we are very much obliged also to Lord Marchwood for bringing these matters to the notice of your Lordships' House. There are a great many inequalities in the distribution of these Orders. I should have liked the noble Earl, Lord Cork, to explain to us why certain Admirals get only civil decorations. In the Territorial Force a number of senior officers get the K.C.B. and others get the civil C.B. I have never been able to understand quite why' the distinction between the Services has been made. It is true that in all these cases the decorations are for administrative services, and not for gallantry in the field.
We must be obliged also to the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, for his intervention. I well remember that when the Order of the British Empire was founded it was only one Order. As he has rightly pointed out to your Lordships, it was divided later on into two distinct classes. If we are not given to-day what my noble friend Lord Marchwood has desired, I feel that at all events the whole question of these awards might be gone into and at the same time the various anomalies might be considered. The Minister has been attacked on both flanks, but I think he will make a very good central charge when he comes to reply. At the same time, thoroughly sympathizing with the Motion as I do, I think that the time has come when the whole of these anomalies might be swept away, not only as regards the particular question before your Lordships' House, but the other questions affecting both his Majesty's Army and His Majesty's Navy.
THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I am sure we all feel very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marchwood for having put this Motion down for discussion today, for not only every member of this House but the whole people of the country are anxious that the great services ren-
308
dered by the officers and men of the Merchant Navy should be fully and adequately recognized. I have naturally always taken a great interest in this question, and I am happy to be able to report to-day that we have been able to make very great progress along the lines desired by those who have spoken so feelingly today. I should like first of all to give a brief account of the awards and decorations that have been made to officers and men of the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets since the war began. It will not take long. We have now had three years of war. In the first year 353 awards to members of the Merchant Navy were gazetted. In the second year there were 815 and in the third year 1,383, making a total of 2,551 awards from the beginning of the war up to the 31st August, 1942. It is interesting that nearly 200 of these awards have been to foreign nationals who have been serving in our cause. The total of 2,551 includes, besides Commendations and Mentions, 468 British Empire Medals, 12 Sea Gallantry Medals, 29 George Medals, 72 Distinguished Service Medals, 4 Albert Medals, 68 Distinguished Service Crosses, 365 M.B.Es., 332 O.B.Es., 8 C.B.Es., I Knighthood and 3 George Crosses. Noble Lords will realize that over 700 officers of the Merchant Navy have been appointed Members, Officers or Commanders of the Order of the British Empire. Apart from two Dunkirk cases, all those have been included in the Civil Division of that Order.
It has been suggested many times, and again to-day, that these awards should have been included in the Military Division of that Order rather than in the Civil Division, and I should like to examine this contention for a moment, because I think it is most important that nothing should be said or done which might give the quite erroneous impression that there is any greater merit in appointment to the Military Division of the Order of the British Empire than to the same class in the Civil Division. Appointment to the Order in the Civil or Military Division is settled merely on the question of fact whether the recipient is a civilian or a member of one of the Services. Seniority in the Order depends entirely on the rank in the Order and the date on which the award was made. There is no difference in the value or in the standard required between the two Divisions, Civil and Mili-

309
tary. The same applies to the British Empire Medal. There is no importance in the fact that there are a Military Division and a Civil Division.
It has been suggested that as an alternative to appointment to the Order of the British Empire, or the award of the British Empire Medal, an officer or rating could suitably be given some military award. I have naturally examined this suggestion carefully, but the great majority of the recommendations in question refer to occasions on which the gallant services of our officers and men were not rendered in action with the enemy. They were services for which their opposite numbers in the Royal Navy would be appointed to the Order of the British Empire or awarded the British Empire Medal. Many of the strongest claims for recognition by Merchant Navy officers and men are for their skill and endurance in long passages, often in open boats. For such cases military awards are not suitable. The courage and endurance shown in such cases is of the very highest, and in the Royal Navy as well as in the Merchant Navy the officers and men concerned would be considered for the George Cross, appointment to the Order of the British Empire, the George Medal or the British Empire Medal. We must therefore be very careful not to let it be thought that the military awards are of greater intrinsic value than those awards, which are open to the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy.
Now if I may I wish to turn to the military decorations which are from time to time awarded to members of the Services and to state precisely what the position of the Merchant Navy is. There is first the Victoria Cross. Officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible for this unique distinction. They are also eligible for the Distinguished Service Cross for services in action with the enemy, and 68 officers of the Merchant Navy have been honoured by this Cross. As regards the other military decorations, officers and men of the Merchant Navy have not been eligible for the Distinguished Service Order, the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal or the Distinguished Service Medal, but I am very happy to announce that His Majesty the King has graciously approved that the statute of the D.S.O. should be amended so as to cover officers of the Merchant Navy for services in action with the enemy. Noble Lords will very shortly
310
see gazetted awards made in connexion with the recent Russia and Malta convoys. These will include a number of D.S.Os. for Merchant Navy officers who took part in those operations.
The C.G.M. was issued nearly seventy years ago for petty officers and seamen of the Royal Navy and N.C.Os. and others who distinguished themselves by acts of conspicuous gallantry in action with the enemy. His Majesty the King has also approved that an Order in Council should be made to provide that this medal also may be awarded to equivalent ranks in the Merchant Navy for gallantry in action with the enemy. Then there is the D.S.M. I am glad to be able to state that His Majesty has been graciously pleased to allow seamen in the Merchant Navy to be awarded this medal for special conduct in action with the enemy. The object in mind is that military awards are appropriate for merchant seamen when engaged in operations which amount in effect to sea battles. The position is now as follows. Civil awards for which officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible are the George Cross, Knights Bachelor, C.B.E., O.B.E., M.B.E., Albert Medal, George Medal, Sea Gallantry Medal, British Empire Medal, and Commendations. Military awards are the V.C., D.S.O., D.S.C., C.G.M., D.S.M. and Mentions.
There was only one point in my noble friend Lord Marchwood's speech to which I feel I must take exception. He said, perhaps without thinking, that these officers, when going into these operations of war under great hazards, had uppermost in their mind awards. I do not believe they have them in mind at all.
LORD MARCHWOOD: May I be allowed to interrupt? My noble friend has an entirely wrong conception of what I said. I said that was the last thing that these men when going into action were thinking about. I hope my noble friend will withdraw.
LORD LEATHERS: I certainly withdraw. I am sorry, but that was what I understood my noble friend to say, arid in the interests of the men I felt I ought to refer to the matter. I think I ought also to mention the letter to which my noble friend Lord Winster referred. It is true that the officers of the Merchant Navy have no desire to seek for different

311
treatment, and that is true also of seamen. Representatives of their own union have said it to me time and again. I feel that there is a peculiar obligation on us to see that all that should be available to them is made available. I am very glad that it has fallen to me to inform your Lordships of the steps so recently taken. Officers and men of the Merchant Navy, like their comrades in the Royal Navy, in the Army and in the Royal Air Force, have rendered to this country such signal service that we shall be for all time in their debt. This debate has enabled us to pay homage to them again. Their service is beyond praise and it is right that officers and men of the Merchant Navy should be eligible for all those gallantry awards that are available to those in the Royal Navy.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, the announcement made by the noble Lord makes me feel that it was well worth the anxiety I have experienced during the last few weeks, when considering how best to support my plea for these men. I am sure that I can say that the officers and men of the Merchant Navy, with their humble duty, thank His Majesty for His gracious approval that these awards, the D.S.O., C.G.M. and D.S.M., shall be added to the list of decorations open to the Merchant Navy. This is a red letter day for them. I thank those noble Lords who have supported me throughout this debate. The one jarring note was the letter read by my noble friend Lord Winster. I was surprised to hear that, and it compels me to state that a great many officers who have spoken to me both personally and officially, state exactly the reverse of what Lord Winster said was the view of that particular Federation. I am pleased that he gave his own opinion afterwards. It was a very nice corrective. The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, said that the Royal Navy will be pleased. I know they will. The Admiral of the Fleet who was in that convoy which went to Malta signalled to the captain of the tanker "Ohio," "I am proud to have met you." Is not that a splendid record for a man to have? I was glad also to have my noble friend Lord Mottistone's support on behalf of the engineers. There is a feeling that there might be a little more consideration
312
given to the meritorious work and the valour of the junior officers, both deck and engine room officers. The men in the engine room go through hell at times when a ship is being shelled and torpedoed. These men will, I am sure, receive the consideration of the Minister, for I know his heart is in the right place. I wish his hearing was as good. I thank him most sincerely for what he has told us to-day and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for consideration of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—Accommodation—House of Lords.
Consideration of a scheme for the erection of Galleries in the Chamber at present used by the House of Lords was adjourned.
2.—Civil Service War Bonus.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Circular No. 6/42 for the payment of increased war bonus to the staff of the House of Lords to whom it applies.
3.—A.R.P. Palace of Westminster.

(a) The Committee sanctioned the proportion clue from the House of Lords for the annual payment in respect of the installation of a new emergency telephone cable.

(b) The Committee also sanctioned a weekly increase in pay to the Clerk to the A.R.P. Office and to the Custodian Auxiliaries as recommended by the Fire Committee.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, in moving that the Report of the Committee be considered, I only wish to draw your Lordships' attention to one point. A scheme for the erection of a gallery was brought before the Committee and after some discussion it was adjourned indefinitely. I move that the Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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