Lords Sitting of 11 May 1943

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

SECRET SESSION.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do sit in Secret Session.
Moved, That the House do now sit in Secret Session.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
Sitting resumed in Open Session.

VICTORY IN NORTH AFRICA.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, we meet to-day, as has already been said in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, on the morrow of a resounding victory in North Africa. This notable success of the United Nations, has, as is clear from many messages that have been received from all over the world, stirred the hearts of our Allies and well wishers wherever they may be. Your Lordships will know of the progress of events from day to day by accounts in the Press, and I do not intend to-day to tell again the whole story of the battle. Indeed we have not yet received a full and detailed account from the Commanders in the field. It is, however, fitting that we should at the earliest possible moment pay tribute to all ranks of the Allied Armies, who have driven the enemy from Tunis and Bizerta and have inflicted such a crushing defeat on the Axis forces.
General Eisenhower and General Alexander, working in complete harmony, with Staffs composed of men from both sides of the Atlantic, have given a fine practical example of Allied co-operation. Under their command, forces from the United States and from the British Commonwealth and Empire, together with French North African troops, have, with courage, determination and skill,
450
carried out successfully the well-conceived plans of the Commanders. It is never easy to execute a plan of action which depends on the co-ordination of the movements of large bodies of troops of all arms, fighting on a widely extended front in difficult and broken country, where roads are few and communications scanty. It is still harder to do this when the fighting men are drawn from several different countries, each with its own methods and traditions of warfare; but in this battle Americans and British, French and Moors, New Zealanders and Indians have played their part.
What has been accomplished could not have been done without outstanding generalship and a fine fighting spirit in all ranks. Nor was this co-operation obtained only between men of various nationalities. It was also effected, most notably, upon another plane between the military, naval, and air forces. The British and American Air Forces in North Africa secured and maintained a complete domination in the air. Throughout the battle period, our Air Forces did four times as many sorties as those of the enemy. Besides the destruction wrought on the enemy's concentrations and lines of communication, the close support given to the ground forces was a factor of the utmost importance in achieving success. This mutual understanding between the fighters in the air and on the ground was brought in this campaign to a pitch of perfection not hitherto attained. No less necessary and invaluable has been the work of the Navy in keeping open the long lines of supply from Great Britain and the United States to the North African theatre of war. Above all, the Navy and the Air Force, by the toll they took of the ships and planes by which the enemy sought to bring supplies across the Sicilian Channel, cut down drastically the resources available to meet our attack. Air-Marshal Tedder and Admiral Cunningham and men of all ranks under their command have well served the cause of the United Nations.
Before the opening of the present phase of the war in North Africa there had been, I know, in some quarters, a certain feeling of impatience. There was a tendency to contrast the rapid advance after El Alamein with the seemingly slow progress of the campaign in Tunisia. But this was surely due to a lack of under-

451
standing of the different conditions involved. It is one thing to fight in the open desert and it is quite another matter to fight in the hilly and broken country of Tunisia, where there is an abundance of defensible positions and a notable lack of good roads. The difficulties of supply and communications, very great in an area of that kind, have not always been realized. But in our appreciation of this victory we should do well to remember the services of the men who supply those engaged in the fighting. Naturally, the rapid advance of the Americans in the north and the break through of our armour in the centre, which culminated in the capture of Bizerta and Tunis, have tended to overshadow the rest of the fighting; but these advances were only made possible by the earlier fighting, hard and difficult, in which British, French and American Forces were engaged against stubborn enemies occupying positions of great natural strength. This bitter fighting, from end to end of the long front which the enemy had to hold, pinned his troops down and prevented him from resisting successfully the hammer-blows which fell on him in the areas where General Alexander had effected heavy concentrations of force.
Thus, while the fighting in the sector occupied by General Montgomery's Eighth Army has not been so spectacular as that further north, active contact has been maintained with the enemy throughout the last week. On Tuesday a local operation south of Saouf was begun, but progress was slow on account of the very extensive minefields laid by the enemy. On the left flank of the Eighth Army the French XIX Corps launched an attack last Tuesday aimed at securing the high ground south of Zaghouan. In this difficult country, progress at first had been slow. But by the end of the week the towns of Pont du Fahs and Zaghouan had been occupied, and the mopping up of the enemy in this region was continuing. It was in the central sector, as your Lordships know, that General Alexander achieved his final break through. His preliminary preparations included the strengthening of the First Army by bringing round formations from the Eighth Army, including the 7th Armoured and 4th Indian Divisions. It was on Wednesday afternoon that General Anderson attacked and captured the much
452
contested hill of Djebel bou Aoukaz with his left flank. Once this had been made secure, General Anderson flung in the main body of his infantry which, supported by a terrific concentration of artillery and the whole weight of the Allied Air Forces, moved forward towards their objectives between Djebel bou Aoukaz and Medjez el Bab and Tunis Road. When these had been captured, the armour immediately passed through to crush the enemy's remaining defences. The advance gathered increasing momentum, culminating on Friday afternoon in the entry into Tunis of the Derbyshire Yeomanry from the First Army and the veteran 11th Hussars of the Eighth Army, and the Tricolour was run up over Tunis by French troops. The First Army covered the final 30 miles advance in 36 hours leaving the enemy battered and demoralized, with little or no power of further organized resistance left in them. In the words of General Alexander himself it was a real thunderbolt.
Meanwhile, my Lords, in the north the Americans, whose capture of Mateur on May 3 had been the first striking advance of the Allies, met with no less success. Aided by French units in the coastal sector, steady progress was made towards Bizerta. The entry of the American tanks into this city, at almost the same time as our armour was arriving in Tunis, marked the end of an arduous advance through most difficult hilly country. On May 10 all fighting ceased in the area of the 2nd United States Corps. The German Commander requested an armistice, but was met with a demand for immediate and unconditional surrender, which he accepted. The great number of prisoners already captured include the Major-Generals commanding the 15th Panzer Division, the Afrika Corps Artillery, the Flak Anti-Aircraft Division and the Lieutenant-General commanding the Manteufel Division. In the area between Bizerta and Tunis all resistance ceased on Sunday morning, when the Divisional Commander and the remnants of the 15th Panzer Division surrendered to our 7th Armoured Division. These two veterans of the desert have been at each other's throats for the best part of two years. It is so far estimated, that since the 5th May we have taken over 50,000 prisoners and this number is continually increasing. Casualties from the 1st Army amount-

453
ing to some 1,200 have, considering the scale of our attack and the tenacity of the enemy's defence, not been heavy and bring the total for the 1st Army since the 17th April up to 8,400, while the Eighth Army's casualties from the 20th April to the 3rd May were just under 2,400.
The remaining Axis forces are now holding the high ground south of Hamman Lif, the Cap Bon peninsula and the coast plain and hilly country as far south as Djebel men Goub, a general line running north and south. In this area the Axis forces are still resisting very strongly. So far, the battle has gone extremely well. It is still too early to say how long the last act will last or to speculate on what hopes of resistance or escape remain to the enemy. But one can say that, with no large towns or ports upon which to base themselves and only the Cap Bon peninsula in their hands, their prospects are certainly not rosy and may even be regarded as grim. They have in front of them our victorious troops, above them our Air Force, and behind them only the beaches and the sea dominated by our Naval and Air Forces. My Lords, I know that I shall be expressing the views of the whole House in setting on record our admiration of, and rendering our thanks to, the men of all the United Nations who have borne their part in this signal victory.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself I should like with all heartiness to be associated with the tribute which the Leader of the House has paid to the Forces of all arms and of many nations who have participated in this brilliant and heartening victory. Particularly we should like to support what the noble Lord said with regard to our appreciation of what must have been the achievements of the men who were responsible for supply. In the rapid advance of any modern army, the maintenance of munitions supply, the feeding of the men and the immense tonnage of resources of all kinds that are required, even in easy country, is an immense and complicated task, but to keep pace with these rapid movements in a hilly, broken country such as the noble Lord describes, with very scanty tracks and roads, is an achievement, so far as one's inner knowledge of these matters is concerned, that is not surpassed by any previous example. It speaks volumes for
454
the organization and the co-operation which the different branches of the supply and other services must have been trained to exercise, because these things, as we know, do not happen by accident; they only come as the result of elaborate discipline and training.
Another matter upon which I think we must congratulate ourselves is the small number of casualties considering the magnitude of these operations and the fact that strongly entrenched hill and mountain positions have had to be carried one after the other for a long time—because the dates which the noble Lord gave cover some time in April up to the present day. One has a vivid and gruesome recollection of the kind of intelligence in this respect that we used to get in the course of the last war. One thinks of the Somme and Passchendaele and many other places where casualties were in tens of thousands, as these are in thousands, and I think it is a revelation to us of what can be achieved by scientific direction. I must say that I am immensely surprised, and I am sure the country will be immensely relieved, at the smallness of the number of casualties which, I take it, includes killed and wounded.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Yes, total casualties, so I understand.
LORD ADDISON: It is an amazingly small number and the fact will be an infinite comfort to thousands of mothers. I would now like to say a word or two on something that I think is prominent in association with that matter. We have seen developed a co-operation between the Air Forces and the land forces which some of us have hoped for but perhaps have not expected. It has been carried to a degree of perfection and completeness during the last weeks which is the finest augury of all of what we may look for in the future. It must have been this cooperation between the Air Force and the land forces which is very largely responsible for the smallness of the number of casualties. I hope His Majesty's Government will see to it that the lessons which have been learnt in Africa by the General Officers Commanding and the Air Marshals, of practical, effective co-operation will be brought home to all those who are being trained here and elsewhere. It is clearly of first-class importance that the lessons of this co-operation between the air

455
and the land forces should be instilled into all other ranks of the Services wherever they may be. I would express the hope that His Majesty's Government will take special care that that is done. There is much more one would like to say but those are the major issues resulting from the statement, which it has been an immense relief to hear.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the House rejoices at the resounding victory which we may be sure will be of great historic significance. It is the culmination of the long campaign in North Africa that has been marked by very dramatic changes of fortune. Throughout that long campaign the brunt of the burden has been borne by the British Army and it is to the British Army that to-day our thanks are mainly due—not only to the troops whose historic qualities have been fully manifest but also to the brilliantly successful generalship which has been so marked in the latter stages of this campaign. The Royal Air Force has rendered services without which this victory would probably not have been possible and the Royal Navy also has contributed its invaluable task. It has been an Allied victory in the end and I think the whole House will rejoice that the American Army, after sharing to the full the bitter fighting, should have taken a leading part in this victory and that the honour should have fallen to them of the capture of the great fortress of Bizerta. We are glad also that French troops have been able to participate in the battle and in the victory, and to be present at the rehoisting of the Tricolour in what is, and has been, and will be, a part of the French Empire.
Those noble Lords who have already spoken have paid tribute to the remarkable feat of organization that has made this result possible. It is not always realized by the public that this campaign in North Africa has been fought at a distance from our shores—if we take the full length of the route of supply from here round the Cape and up the East Coast of Africa to Egypt—equal to the distance from this country to Australia. All our troops, all our supplies, until the Allied landing directly in North Africa, had to be conveyed through that full distance. If we had heard that this campaign had been fought in Australia, that half a million
456
men with all their supplies and equipment had been carried there, we should have said it was the most remarkable achievement in military transport ever known to history. That is in substance the effect, and the organization of that transportation should receive the highest meed of praise. When we look at the map and forget that the passage of the transport and supplies, turning the corner round the Cape of Good Hope, came back towards these shores, the whole distance does not seem so far, but taking into account the actual distance traversed the achievement is undoubtedly the most remarkable ever known in the whole of military history.
On other word I would ask leave to say—it could not have been said by the the noble Viscount the Leader of the House as a member of the Government—it that we ought to pay tribute on this occasion to the Prime Minister. In war the nation can only judge by results. It cannot understand and appreciate all the varied and complex factors that go to build up those results. When there are defeats the Government of the day and its head are criticized, and it is right that that should be so, for by no other means can a democracy keep its Government up to the mark; but when there are victories, and victories due to remarkable organization, then it is right that the praise should be given to the Government of the day, and particularly to its head. We know that this great victory has been due in very great measure to the Prime Minister personally, to his tenacity, foresight and efficient direction, and it is right that to-day Parliament should make itself the spokesman of the nation's gratitude.

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.

RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD had the following Notice on the Paper: To move to resolve, That in the interests of national unity and of unity among the Christian Churches it is desirable that all remaining civil disabilities on religious grounds on persons not members of the Church of England should be removed and that His Majesty's Government be requested

457
to introduce the necessary legislation for this purpose as soon as conveniently possible.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire your permission to make a very slight alteration in the wording of my Motion. As it stands I think the Motion could in no way be held to apply to, or affect the Crown, but in order that there may be no doubt about it, I ask your Lordships to allow me to substitute for the word "persons" in the third line the words "subjects of His Majesty." The Resolution will then read "… it is desirable that all remaining disabilities on religious grounds on subjects of His Majesty not members of the Church of England" and so on. I suppose that prior to, say, the beginning of the eighteenth century religious strife was responsible for more wars, and more bitter wars, than any other cause at all. As civilization progressed religion as a cause of war ceased to have the same effect, and then, with a further advance of civilization, came the gradual removal of religious disabilities.
In this country religious disabilities were removed in very large measure, and I think perhaps on the whole very quickly, but they were removed by a succession of Statutes, the effect of which in some cases was very doubtful. Be that as it may, it has removed the greater part of those religious disabilities, and, as I say, I think that civilization has had the result of removing religion from being a common cause of war. The war that we are at present engaged in is one—I think I shall carry your Lordships with me in this—in which all religions, or perhaps, if I may use the phrase, all civilized religions, are banded together to fight the forces of irreligion. It is in those circumstances that I submit to your Lordships' House that it would be very much in the interests of the country, in the interests indeed of all the Allied Nations, that we should make a final and generous gesture in raising our voice in favour of the removal of all remaining religious disabilities. Your Lordships will realize that moving my Motion in this form I do not put my proposal forward in the nature so much of relief to any particular religion as of getting rid of disabilities which in my opinion should never be allowed to interfere with the conduct of our public affairs in this country.
Now I must come to the question of what remaining religious disabilities there are, if any, and I say "if any" advisedly. I believe I am right in saying that the only remaining disabilities, at any rate the only remaining disabilities of great importance, are two; namely, that a Roman Catholic cannot be Lord Chancellor, and that a Jew cannot be Lord Chancellor. But even that is, I believe, a matter of some doubt. It is, however, generally supposed that members of those two religions—when I speak of Jews I must be understood throughout to mean adherents of the Jewish faith—cannot become Lord Chancellor. I take as my authority for the fact that those disabilities do exist, in the opinion, at any rate, of great legal experts, Halsbury's Laws of England, in which it is stated, I believe I am right in saying, quite definitely, that the Lord Chancellor must be a Protestant. At any rate, it is stated that neither a Roman Catholic nor a Jew can be Lord Chancellor. But if you turn to what is said on the subject in Anson's great history of the British Constitution you will find that there is at least a doubt about it. Therefore, that doubt should be removed, and if that doubt is to be removed it can be removed in one way only, by removing the disabilities.
I hope that from what I have already said it will be understood that I put this matter forward as a political rather than as a religious matter, but I must deal with the particular case of the position of the Lord Chancellor for I know that, in the country at any rate, I hope not so much in your Lordships' House, there is violent objection on the part of a small number of people to a Roman Catholic being permitted to be Lord Chancellor. For that we have, to some extent, to blame the common saying that the Lord Chancellor is the Keeper of the King's Conscience. In these days there can scarcely be a more meaningless or misleading saying than that the Lord Chancellor is the Keeper of the King's Conscience. We owe that particular phrase, or its popularity, I think, very largely, to Blackstone; and may we turn for a moment to see what Blackstone says about it? He explains that originally, in pre-Reformation days, the Lord Chancellor was generally a cleric, no other person being qualified in other respects

459
to hold the position, and that he thus usually became the King's Confessor, and was Keeper of the King's Conscience. That, at any rate, has gone. In these days there can be no doubt about that. But there is a further point, and this also is dealt with by Blackstone, that, later than the days of the Reformation, the Lord Chancellor in the Chancery Court had the duty of putting forward what in those days I believe were called—I hope I am using the proper legal pronunciation—Petitions monstrans de droit. The reason of this was that when the King, having been ill-advised—for he could do no wrong of himself—had done anything which caused injury to the subject, he would immediately put the matter right by referring it to the Lord Chancellor, the Keeper of the King's Conscience. Now all that, again, has completely gone. The Lord Chancellor's original jurisdiction in equity, as so-called Keeper of the King's Conscience, to make good to the subject unwitting offences by the King, has all been got rid of by subsequent legislation, and, finally, by the last Judicature Acts. I think I am right in saying, though I speak with much deference in the presence of great lawyers, that the particular jurisdiction which was said to be that of the Keeper of the King's Conscience, is now vested even less, perhaps, in the Lord Chancellor than in others of His Majesty's Judges; certainly it is not vested in the person of the Lord Chancellor alone. Therefore, I hope that nobody will use that phrase as an argument against the removal of these religious disabilities, unless he can find some better reason than I have been able to find for the Lord Chancellor being described, in these days, as Keeper of the King's Conscience.
I do not imagine that any monarch for some time back would have admitted that anybody in this country was the keeper of his or her private conscience. To some extent it might be correct to describe, in some way, as the keepers of the King's Conscience—his official conscience, if I may call it so—those whose advice he has to take under the Constitution. But in that case who is it that is the King's principal adviser, or who are his principal advisers?—the Cabinet, and especially the Prime Minister. There is certainly nothing to prevent the Prime Minister being a
460
Roman Catholic, or belonging to any other religion, or having no religion at all. There is nothing to prevent the office of Lord Chancellor being held by an atheist or an agnostic or a member of any religious body except the Roman Catholic Church and the adherents of the Jewish faith. This is not merely illogical; it is unnecessary. It is—though I put this as the smallest part of the argument, perhaps—a slur upon the reputation of a large body of His Majesty's subjects; and, if it is to have any effect at all, it must be a constitutional inconvenience to the country. A man is not appointed Lord Chancellor who is not suitable for the post, or at any rate it is a long time since that happened. If such a thing should happen in the future, there are other ways of rectifying the evil. A man's unsuitability for the position may well be due to some reason other than religion. A case which many of your Lordships may remember occurred about the middle of the last century, when a Lord Chancellor was removed from office as the result of a vote of censure passed on him by the House of Commons. That was not done on religious grounds; it was based on the accusation, at any rate, that he had been guilty of what in those days was a comparatively venial offence—that is, of prefering some of his relatives and friends to office in a way which he should not have taken.
What reason is there for disqualifying a man from holding this high office simply on the ground that he is an adherent of a particular faith or of a particular Church? If that matter is to be taken into consideration at all, it should be done the other way round, and the religion which a man must hold to qualify him for the office of Lord Chancellor should be stated. I venture to suggest that in these times there is really nothing to be said which can carry any great weight in favour of this penalty of proscription on religious grounds of persons belonging to certain religions. If that be so, then it is time, not so much in the interest of Roman Catholics or of the adherents of the Jewish faith, but for the good name and in the interests of the country itself and of our Constitution, to get rid of this illogical and totally unnecessary impediment to the promotion of certain people to hold this high office.
I should like to go back into recent past history and to mention three men who would have been very qualified to hold this high office, if it had not been for this religious disability. The first name which will no doubt occur to your minds almost at once, is that of the first Lord Russell of Killowen, who was a Roman Catholic. We shall all remember also Lord Reading, who was disqualified as an adherent of the Jewish faith. I do not think that anyone here will question the assertion that he would have adorned rather than disgraced the office of Lord Chancellor. The third case is that of a man who died comparatively early in life, so far as positions of this sort are concerned—under the age of 60—Sir George Jessel—Master of the Rolls. He was held by many to be the greatest equity lawyer of modern times. Why should the State deprive itself, by an archaic and doubtful relic of ancient times, of the opportunity of being able to make use of such men as these? In the case of Sir George Jessel, the question might well have come into prominence if he had lived some years longer, but there is an interesting fact which I should like to mention in regard to him. He held the office of Master of the Rolls, because this particular disability does not apply to that office, but I believe that I am right in saying that in older times, when the Lord Chancellor was supposed to have a special jurisdiction as Keeper of the King's Consience, the Master of the Rolls was his chief assistant, and, as sometimes happens, the greater part of the work and duties of the Lord Chancellor in that direction in those days was laid by him on his assistant. If the Master of the Rolls could be a Jew or a Roman Catholic, why could not the same apply in the case of the Lord Chancellor?
I do not think that there is any need for me to elaborate my argument much more, but I should like to say another word about the opposition which still exists among a small number of people in this country—I believe a rapidly dwindling number—to a Roman Catholic holding this office. In 1891, when the late Mr. Gladstone introduced a Roman Catholic Relief Bill which would have allowed the Lord Chancellor to be a Roman Catholic, the opposition was sufficient to cause the withdrawal of the Bill. Again, when the last Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed in 1926, and when, indeed, the only disabilities
462
remaining were ones which had practically fallen into desuetude, the relief in respect of the Lord Chancellor was left out of the Bill, because of the immense amount of violent opposition which it would have aroused in some parts of the country. I know something about that opposition from the half-dozen or more letters which I have received from various parts of the country in the last few days with reference to this Motion. I shall refer particularly only to one of them, although I am not sure that it is much worse than some of the others, but it stated quite definitely, with regard to Roman Catholics, that "what we want in regard to these people is not peace but war, and to exterminate the whole system." The very violence of those Anti-Papists is sufficient to show that they can have very little solid argument in their favour. We have good reason to be thankful in this country for the great services which have been rendered both by Jews and by Roman Catholics, and I doubt whether anybody in your Lordships' House would for a moment think that members of either of those faiths were people who could not be regarded as loyal subjects of the Crown. In those circumstances I sincerely hope that your Lordships will accept and pass my Motion.
I should, perhaps, say a word about the end of it, which is a request to His Majesty's Government to introduce the necessary legislation. I have particularly worded that in a most temperate manner and asked them to do so as soon as is conveniently possible. That, am afraid some of my political friends would say, is asking them to introduce it some day which may never come, and for the very reason which I have given for advocating this Motion here I am most anxious to do nothing to embarrass the Government. I had perfectly well realized that legislation for this purpose at the present time would not be conveniently possible, indeed would not be practicable, and one could not expect the Government to undertake it. But I think the Motion is comparatively meaningless unless it does ask that legislation may be introduced, because in these times of course a private member cannot introduce legislation. In these circumstances I sincerely hope that the Government may see their way to accept the Motion in the words in which I have placed it on the Order Paper, with the small alteration which I have asked your

463
Lordships' permission to make in it. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the interests of national unity and of unity among the Christian Churches it is desirable that all remaining civil disabilities on religious grounds on subjects of His Majesty not members of the Church of England should be removed and that His Majesty's Government be requested to introduce the necessary legislation for this purpose as soon as conveniently possible.—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, the reason for my intervention in this discussion is that certain noble Lords have not found it possible to be in their places this afternoon, and they do not wish the noble Lord, who has raised this Motion to feel that by their absence they are treating him with any discourtesy. Rather would I take this opportunity of thanking him for raising this question, and also for all the past services which he has rendered in this matter. On behalf of the other noble Lords I would like to stress the point that we do appreciate the difficulty of dealing with such a question in the middle of so great a struggle as this war, and we would equally add that if in the future His Majesty's Government should be able to give some consideration to this question we shall be truly gratified.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Hemingford, for raising this question, and I am sure we all much appreciate the dignified and conciliatory terms in which he has brought it forward. It might at first sight seem a little invidious for the holder of my present office to make a reply, but I do not feel any embarrassment. There is nothing individual or personal about it, and the noble Lord has raised a question which at any rate on one side is perhaps a legal question. I may say at once that I think the answer to his Motion to-day, which I shall ask the House not to accept, is that it is entirely inopportune. There could not be a time, I suppose, when it was less desirable to rouse those fierce feelings which he has described as likely to be aroused by such a proposal than the time at which we now find ourselves.
464
I will return to that consideration in a few moments, but I think first the House will expect me briefly and as clearly as I can to make a short contribution on the legal and constitutional aspect of this matter, and the more so, perhaps, because I do not entirely agree with the view which the noble Lord has presented. I say quite bluntly that I do not know any reason why a Jew should not be appointed Lord Chancellor under our present law—none at all. The objection which obtained down, I think, to the seventies of the last century was that the oath, or one of the oaths, which had to be taken by a Lord Chancellor was taken "on the faith of a Christian," and that manifestly was an objection to a Jew being appointed to the Woolsack. But those words were removed from the oath expressly by Parliament, I think in the year 1867, and to the best of my belief for the last seventy years there has been no objection at all to a Jew being appointed Lord Chancellor, as far as any legal objection goes. The actual case which my noble friend mentioned, or one of the cases that he mentioned, the case of the late Lord Reading, was, I am quite sure, not decided on any such grounds at all, but it was thought by the Prime Minister of the day that the person whom he should appoint was Lord Haldane, and appointed he was. That, I think, really disposes of any objection on the ground that the suggested occupant of the office is a Jew.
As regards the other test, the Roman Catholic test, there is a great deal of history behind that. I should be very sorry to attempt to go into the matter in detail, but it is a matter of a good deal of historical interest, and I must say I think that the view which perhaps I might call the popular view is not in all respects quite correct. I believe that the answer to the question, "Can a Roman Catholic be appointed Lord Chancellor?" is by no means as certain as many people suppose. These disqualifications in our country were of course created by the method of requiring a man who was about to hold a position to take certain oaths, or to make certain declarations. In the Restoration at the time of Charles II was passed the Test Act of 1672, I think, and the Test Act, be it observed, required not only that every Minister of the Crown but that every military and naval officer, and everybody who served the Crown in

465
any capacity at all, should take oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and at the same time make a declaration of his disbelief in the doctrine of transubstantiation. That was designed to have the effect of excluding a Roman Catholic, and in the case of conscientious and honourable Roman Catholics it would exclude.
The matter was carried further. Some five or six years after that, I think in 1677, Parliament extended that provision to the members of both Houses of Parliament, and no Peer could, after 1677, sit and vote in this House unless he made such a declaration, and indeed the declaration was extended and had to include a repudiation of the veneration of the Virgin or the Saints and of the sacrifice of the Mass. There was a period therefore in the history of this House—I think myself it was a shocking situation—in which a Peer, not because he held office, but because he was qualified otherwise to sit in this House, could not sit and could not vote unless he made that declaration. Early in the next century the matter was carried even further because these disqualifying requirements, or some of them, were extended to people practising various professions. No barrister, no attorney, amongst others, under the terms of the Statute of George I, could practise his profession unless he was prepared to take these oaths designed to exclude Roman Catholics. It extended also to heads of colleges, to schoolmasters, and to quite a large number of people.
These were the bad old days. There is not one of us here who is not very glad indeed that these disqualifications should have been removed. How did they come to be removed? Primarily by the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act in the year 1829. Everybody knows that Catholic emancipation might very well have come about sooner—almost a generation sooner—if it had not been for the personal and violent objection of King George III in the days when he was exercising what was really a personal government. Pitt, during his Prime Ministership, was in favour of Catholic emancipation. A former occupant of the Woolsack, Lord Thurlow, operating very closely with the King against his own Prime Minister, bad a good deal to do with obstructing the change. Ultimately, as we know, long after Pitt's death, the Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed. Now this is the point on which, if I may say so, not
466
so much the history books but those who occasionally reproduce them go a little wrong. The Roman Catholic Relief Act, in principle, provided that the holding of office and the practising of professions and other things—the public life of any individual man—should be conducted without the obligation of any religious test; but it did contain a provision which said that nothing in that Act was to alter the law as it then applied to, amongst others, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, His Majesty's High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland, and one or two more. It was in fact a saving clause. It did not of its own force and virtue impose any disability, but it excepted out of the general provision those cases and left them as they were before. Undoubtedly at that date, and for a good many years after, a Roman Catholic, could not be Lord Chancellor.
The question raised is a difficult one on which I do not intend to pronounce to-day. It is whether the effect of the series of rather complicated Statutes passed in the sixties and seventies of the last century, including a Statute Law Revision Act, is or is not to alter the law as to the Lord Chancellor as it existed before. At any rate this can be stated with complete certainty, and this is as far as I can take the matter to-day before I turn to the other aspect: it is quite certain that to-day the Lord Chancellor is not called upon either to make a declaration or to take an oath which a conscientious Roman Catholic could not make or take. I noticed that when my noble friend's Bill of 1926 was being discussed in Committee in the House of Commons a very elaborate speech was made which suggested that the Lord Chancellor at that date, and to-day, had to make a declaration against transubstantiation and the Mass and so forth. Nothing of the kind. That was removed long ago, and certainly for the last seventy years that has not been so. To take some of my predecessors, it is quite certain that Lord Selborne, Lord Halsbury, Lord Herschell, and later occupants of the office, some of whom I see here to-day, did not make such a declaration, and there is no provision that they should have made it. Neither is it true to-day that the form of oath which the Lord Chancellor has to take is in terms which would raise any diffi-

467
culties either to a Roman Catholic. On the contrary, the oaths that are taken by the Lord Chancellor to-day together with the judicial oath are the two oaths ordinarily taken when one assumes any Ministerial office. One is the oath of allegiance and the other is the oath of office—to serve in the office faithfully. There is not the slightest reason, so far as the terms of that oath are concerned, why it should not be taken by a Roman Catholic.
I do not seek to resolve the doubt as to whether the Victorian Statutes to which I have referred, of 1863, 1867 and 1871, have, on their true construction—and they are rather involved and complicated—removed the disqualification in principle altogether. Frankly that is not a matter on which I propose to pronounce. It is quite true, as my noble friend said, that some of the textbook writers—very considerable authorities on Constitutional Law—have stated the matter as he stated it here; but I am not at all convinced that Sir William Anson's treatise, for example, should be read as a confident affirmation of my noble friend's view. I notice that the language which he uses is very unusual. The language in Sir William Anson's book is this:
"It is still held that the exception introduced into the Catholic Relief Act, 1829, disables a Roman Catholic for the offices therein mentioned."
I think the language of that most careful and learned author, and of his editors since, is deliberately designed to indicate that this is not quite so plain as has sometimes been assumed. Certainly very eminent opinion to the contrary has been expressed.
There is, for example, the opinion of Sir John Coleridge, who was Attorney-General in Mr. Gladstone's Government of 1870, and was for many years a distinguished Lord Chief Justice and a very considerable lawyer. You will find, if you look in Hansard in the year 1872, when he was Attorney-General, that he gave an answer—not the ordinary short answer which you have as a rule, at any rate in the House of Commons to a question, but a long, reasoned, argued answer—in which he came to the conclusion, and asserted, that this disqualification did not in fact exist in the case of the Lord-Chancellorship. He may have been right or he may have been wrong, but what
468
one notices—and it is very striking—is that when Mr. Gladstone in the year 1891, being then the Leader of the Opposition, introduced in the House of Commons a Bill which would, in terms, have removed this disqualification by express provision, he used the following language. He said he believed it to be in law seriously doubtful whether Roman Catholics are at this moment disabled from holding the office of Lord Chancellor. I think therefore it is fair to say that the point is a difficult and rather complicated one, and certainly not one on which absolutely positive assertions can be made.
I will go further—and here again I believe I am adopting the view expressed by Mr. Gladstone in his speech—and say that I do agree that before a Prime Minister ever took the responsibility of appointing to the office of Lord Chancellor a Roman Catholic he undoubtedly would be acting most imprudently unless first the law on the matter was by Statute made quite clear. I have no doubt about that at all. There are, of course, arguments of the most serious sort which may be urged either way. It is certainly true that if disqualification still exists it is a survival, almost the only survival, from a time in our history when, as I have pointed out, a similar disqualification was universally applied to all Ministers and all officers of the Crown. It is also quite true, as I think my noble friend indicated that whatever may have been the position of the Lord Chancellor in the days when he was an ecclesiastic especially close to the King, possibly his confessor and, as has been crudely suggested elsewhere, possibly the only Minister who could read—whatever his authority may have been in those days, unquestionably there are more important offices in the Government than the Lord Chancellor's to-day, and it is a very odd suggestion that what is on this view a disqualification in connexion with this office should not also be a disqualification in connexion with the office of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and every other Ministerial office.
I think most people who have been brought up, as I am glad to say I have, in the liberal school will feel a very great deal of sympathy with the view, which is a view against tests, and will most warmly approve of the reforms in the law which have step by step removed them. Whether or not on the other hand

469
a change should be made in this case is not a matter for me to pronounce upon. What I may say and what appears to me to be quite conclusive is this, that it would be a most foolish and dangerous thing to bring this old item of controversy into the arena at a time when the whole of us are rejoicing in national unity. I notice that my noble friend's Resolution asks the House to declare that "in the interests of national unity" we should adopt his Resolution, but he has described in very strong terms what he believed would be the result if in a time like this the proposed change, or perhaps elucidation, was made in the sense he desires. In this perhaps he is right, that it would have the result of producing quite a serious protest in certain quarters. Whether that is a protest with which I should sympathize, whether it is on the long view the wise view, is quite another matter, but could anybody in a time like this think it wise in the interests of national unity to produce, as it seems to me quite unnecessarily, this complication?
Therefore I would very strongly urge most respectfully upon the House and urge upon my noble friend that really this is inopportune, that we ought to devote ourselves to everything which promotes general agreement among all the King's servants, and that we should not urge at this time a departure which on my noble friend's own admission and explanation he knows is going to produce in certain quarters a protest. I cannot think that the present system is at this living moment giving gross offence to anybody. I reserve entirely my opinion as to what may be the proper view to take of it in times to come. It has, as I have observed, its roots very, very deep in British history. It represents a survival of a view which has run through centuries. Whether it is right to dispose of it or not it is not for me now to say, but I do most confidently and urgently press upon your Lordships that this is not the time to raise it.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, after what the noble Viscount on the Woolsack has said I cannot really do otherwise than ask leave to withdraw this Motion, because I hope your Lordships will have gathered from what I said that the very
470
last thing I wanted to do was to raise strife in the country at the present moment. It is true that I did refer to the intense opposition which I knew there would be from certain quarters, but my view of it was that that was confined to so very few persons that it would be well outweighed by the gesture of toleration to certain religions which I supposed, at any rate in the case of one, were at the present time labouring under a proscription—a position which is archaic and which might lead to much more serious strife if the members of that particular Church were not the very good and patriotic citizens that they are. This debate will have done something in having produced the very valuable remarks that we have heard from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and I must accept, and very gladly do so, the view which he has expressed that there is no bar upon a Jew becoming Lord Chancellor. That at any rate has set the minds of some of us at rest on that particular point. With regard to his remarks on the question of Roman Catholics, I cannot help thinking that if they are read with care, in spite of the great caution which he used not to commit himself, there will be found in them the greatest possible solid arguments in favour of that removal of disabilities which I have been advocating. If there is likely to be a storm or outcry raised by a Resolution of this kind at the present time I have no option whatever but to ask leave to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FRENCH WARSHIPS AT ALEXANDRIA.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what is the position regarding the negotiations reported to have been began in February concerning the French warships interned at Alexandria, said: My Lords, it has been suggested to me that I should postpone the question I have on the Paper, and I very willingly do so. I propose to put it down for the first day of the next series of sittings.
House adjourned.