HL Deb 21 September 1943 vol 129 cc17-34

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to ask whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the position of British children who were evacuated to Canada and the United States in 1940 and who ever since have been entirely dependent upon the charity of their hosts in those countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, my object in bringing this Motion before your Lordships is to draw attention to a state of affairs which exists at the present time and which, as I shall venture to try to persuade your Lordships, should be ended at the earliest possible moment. In July last I received a letter from a friend of mine, who enclosed a copy of the Daily Sketch in which was an article by that well known and well informed writer "Candidus," headed "Forgotten Children," and the article alluded to those children who were evacuated to Canada and the United States of America in the summer of 1940. It was pointed out that after this long lapse of time those children are still living on the charity of the kind people who took them into their homes when things were looking somewhat black in this country.

It will be remembered that in June, 1940, the Government announced that they had accepted as their official policy a plan, prepared by a Departmental Committee, for the evacuation of children overseas, and that this plan had been endorsed by the War Cabinet. In making the announcement advantage was very properly taken of the opportunity of thanking, in the name of the people of this country, those kind persons overseas for the extremely generous offers for the reception and maintenance of British children which had been made by people in the Dominions and in the United States of America. Although accepted, the scheme was not put into immediate operation, for the situation at sea in June, 1940, was a very difficult one, and the Lord Privy Seal, when announcing a temporary postponement, said it was to allow time to enable the Government to provide naval escort to the ships which would be employed for the purpose. It was made perfectly clear at that time that, owing to the necessity of conserving our dollar resources to meet other essential demands, it was impossible to allow the sending of funds in any form for the maintenance of those children. Subsequently, after the scheme had been abandoned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in practically all cases before the children left this country their parents or guardians had signed an under-taking that they would not make an application to be allowed to remit overseas.

I have mentioned these facts to show that I know of them, and I can quite appreciate that the action taken was necessary at that time. I have not the slightest intention of attributing any bad faith in this case to the Government. What I am going to do is to ask whether, in view of the altered circumstances, that decision cannot be either abolished or at least eased to a considerable extent. The circumstances which prevail now are very different from what they were when the Government framed these regulations. In June, 1940, it was contemplated that many thousands of children would be evacuated overseas. In the House of Commons mention was made of a figure as high as a quarter of a million. The Government spokesman said he already had 100,000 vacancies, and no doubt he could get more. The scheme was put in operation at the end of July, 1940, and at the beginning of August it was officially stated that the parents and guardians of 19,365 children had already been notified that their applications were approved. The children to be sent, we were told, would be "a cross-section of the children of this country." Early in September, however, the scheme came to an abrupt end owing to the torpedoing of two ships with children on board and, as your Lordships will remember, in one case, the "City of Benares," several young lives were lost. In January, 1941, the scheme was finally abandoned, "owing to the danger to which passenger vessels were exposed making it obviously undesirable to resume the evacuation of children overseas." Subsequently it was announced that, under the Government scheme, 1532 children had gone to Canada, and 835 to the United States. Other children were sent privately and some were sent to other Dominions. If we take the number of 3,000, it certainly covers the total that went to North America.

Your Lordships will agree that these figures—3,000 instead of 100,000—represent a very different state of affairs from what the Government originally contemplated. At the end of 1941 this was recognized, and the regulations were to some extent eased up. The children, when they left these shores, were provided with the few pounds which it was then permitted to export with each child. Beyond that they had no money, and for the first eighteen months of their stay in America no money could be sent to them. At the end of 1941—that is, after eighteen months—parents were allowed to send £3 per child per month, and £10 worth of clothes were allowed to be sent per annum, but as the clothes had to be sent from this country, doubtless a certain proportion of the parcels failed to reach their destination. Three pounds a month is little enough to keep a child on in this country, and it does not go very far across the Atlantic. This justifies the statement that has been made that these children are still living on the charity of those kind people who received them at a time when things were very black over here, and when we were glad to get rid of them for their own sakes.

Your Lordships will recall that these children were referred to as "young ambassadors of Britain." This was done in the Press, on the platform, and in Parliament, but if they were young ambassadors I can only fear that we have to register another mission that has failed, for their position to-day certainly does no credit to this country. I am sure the children are playing their part as well as they can in the difficult circumstances in which they are placed, but they and their parents are in a most invidious position. However hospitable and good-natured their hosts may be, it must be irksome— particularly for those who are not well-off—to be called upon to arrange, and perhaps pay, for housing, feeding, schooling, dentists, and doctors for children who are not their own, and who are billeted upon them for an indefinite period. Every year a child becomes more expensive. There is a great difference between a boy of seven and one of ten, and in both Canada and the United States the conditions of living are becoming more difficult as the war proceeds. Here at home in this country many of the arrangements made between relations and friends whereby people went to stay with one another have gone by the board because circumstances have changed. People do like having their homes to themselves!

Surely it would be easy to arrange, under one or other of the financial schemes now in operation, for payment on an adequate scale to those who house these children. There are, at the outside, 3,000 of these boys and girls to be considered, and in many cases the parents are only too anxious to provide for their own children. This, I am informed, they are not even allowed to do in the few cases where the homes to which their children were sent have proved unsatisfactory. I submit that our young countrymen should not be allowed to continue in their present humiliating position, that those kind people who have befriended them should no longer suffer financially, and that the Government should arrange to pay a proper sum for each child, collecting the amount from those parents who are able to pay and making up the amount in cases where they are not. The alternative would be for the Government to facilitate the passage home of our discredited "ambassadors." Some children have been allowed to return, so why not all? It would, from the nature of things, have to be a gradual return, and would make little demand on shipping space. I hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government will be able to tell your Lordships that arrangements have been or are about to be made which will put an end to this unsatisfactory state of affairs. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who, when our cities were being bombed, hastened to offer hospitality to our children. The least we can do is to repatriate these children as soon as we can, and if we cannot do that, at least provide an adequate allowance for their support. I beg to move for Papers.

LORD MARCHWOOD

My Lords, I should like to support the plea put forward by the noble and gallant Earl because recently, when in Canada, I met several of these unfortunate people who were in a very sad plight. I promised that I would put down a question when I returned to this country. It is for that reason that I have not withdrawn the question in my name on the Order Paper to-day, because at the time I sent it in I was unaware that this Motion was coming forward. I spoke to our High Commissioner, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, when in Ottawa, and pointed out the hardships that were being suffered by these unfortunate people. He was most sympathetic, and said that the Treasury in many instances had eased the lot of these people by relaxing the conditions. I sincerely hope the conditions will be relaxed still further, for many hard cases came to my personal knowledge. I know that relatives are keen and eager to help in the matter of finance if it is permitted. I feel quite sure that it is not the wish of the Government that they should be placed in this unfortunate eleemosynary position, where people have taken them and their children into their homes without realizing the cost or how long the war would last.

When I came into the House a letter was put into my hand which touches on this point and, if I may, I should like to read two paragraphs from it. The writer says: My wife is American-born, and she and our two children have now been in the States for three years. They are fortunate in that they have been able to live with my wife's parents or relations, but this has not made the financial situation any easier. My 'inlaws' are both elderly and by no means well-off, and consequently my family's living expenses and the education of the children have had to be paid for by a whip-round amongst all the members of the family circle. It is true that I am allowed to send £16 per month, but this does not go very far towards school fees even though, with traditional American kindness, these have been greatly reduced for us. It is a humiliating situation for both of us, but you are already fully aware of the position. There is, however, another aspect which fortunately does not apply in our own case although I submit that it is a serious one. I quote from a recent letter from my wife: — The question of the British children in this country is becoming a major problem. I hope the powers that be appreciate this fact. With all the tremendous problems connected with the running of the war this must seem trivial, but I do not think it is. I know of so many cases where the conditions in households that have taken British children are harrowing—tremendous increases in the cost of living, the impossibility of getting help of any kind, the food situation, certainly not as difficult as in England, but just one added thing. I am so afraid of our all outstaying our welcome. A lot of people do not want the children to go back, and wish to keep them for the duration. But I think the matter should be carefully considered, and in houses where the conditions are difficult, weeding out should take place. I know ships are scarce and every inch of space is needed for vital supplies but I think it would indeed be wise for one or two ships to be set aside and for many mothers and children to be sent home as quickly as possible. It would do a great deal towards maintaining a happy relationship that shows signs of becoming strained.'"… It may not be wise to consider yet the wholesale return of the children, but I suggest that the older ones at least should be permitted to return. The Government could, I think, if they consider the situation generously, give much help. I sincerely hope it may be possible for many of these people to be brought home. It is for that reason that I to-day support the Motion so well put by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, and ask the Government to give it their most sympathetic and generous consideration.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cork, for bringing forward this Motion. It is one that interests me personally very much because I have two children still in America and I get information of the situation from them and others relating not only to the United States but also to Canada. I am perhaps fortunate that the sponsors of my children are sufficiently well off to be able to look after them perfectly well and to look after other children also. Like all parents in a similar situation to myself, I am extremely grateful for all that has been done by those people who have taken these children in, but I do not think either of the two noble Lords who have spoken have, so far as my knowledge goes, in the least exaggerated the situation that now obtains in the case of a great many of the children. I have had letters from America which give some indication of the very serious and real difficulties that are being caused by the continuance of these children in America. If I might quote from those letters, one statement is that in very many cases the sponsors of these children are absolutely at the end of their tether financially. Taxation has risen seven times in the past year, and the cost of living has doubled, and finally those people are beginning to say that the British Government are ungrateful and stingy.

The noble Earl, Lord Cork, told the House how much money was being sent out. I understand that it amounts to 40 dollars for an adult and 12 dollars for a child per month. I am informed that the very least a woman and a child can live on is 200 dollars a month. My arithmetic is not very good but I think 200 dollars a month amounts to something like £600 a year or thereabouts, which is a great deal more than the amount that we are now allowed to send out to them. It is true that a number of these English mothers are now able to do a certain amount of work, but the very fact of their being there to look after the children precludes them from working whole-time and they can only take part-time jobs. One must also remember that out there they are aliens and it is not so easy for them to get good jobs. Still they are, as I understand it, doing their best to help themselves, though it does not go as far as is necessary. Another fact which I think must be borne in mind in considering this problem is that in many cases the parents in this country of children out there, even if they were allowed to send out the money necessary for the keep of their children, would not be able to afford to do so. The standard of living and the cost of living on the other side of the Atlantic are so much higher than in this country that the incomes of many of the parents would not be able to stand it. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will very seriously consider taking the necessary steps to enable these children to come home at the earliest possible moment.

I understand that it is a matter now of something like 4,000 or 5,000. I know perfectly well that the argument can be used that if 4,000 or 5,000 women and children are sent back from America, it will mean 4,000 or 5,000 less troops being sent to this country. I do not know that on examination that particular argument holds a great deal of water. I do not suppose for a moment that all the troops that come over here are fully trained, and it would only mean that their arrival in this country would be delayed for the necessary period for a boat to come across and back again. The troops would have three weeks or a month in which to take extra training on the other side instead of on this side of the Atlantic. It is an important and a growing question because it is very necessary for the future of the world that we and the United States of America and the Dominions should remain on the friendliest and the best possible terms. It is not enough for the Governments of the countries concerned to remain friendly. We want the ordinary people of these countries to remain friendly. To have a running sore based on difficulties arising from money and from the cost of living, is something that will do a great deal of harm between the two countries, and it will become worse the longer the difficulties remain.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I greatly hope the Government may be able to give favourable consideration to this matter. I am well aware, through my connexion with the Treasury, that there are all kinds of considerations which make it much more difficult than it would appear at first sight to be. Naturally we would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one cannot say that without expressing, as I am sure everyone who is in this House would wish to do, our deep sense of the loss that the country has sustained by the untimely death of the holder of that great office. Having come in contact with him so often I can speak with knowledge when I say that if ever a man really gave his life for his country by his persistent devotion and hard work when he had been warned that he was really carrying this too far, that man was Sir Kingsley Wood. I am sure we all deplore his loss and sympathize with his relatives. I had to mention that because I was asking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time should give favourable consideration to this appeal. As I have said, there are various considerations which make it extremely difficult to solve the problem. It is much more difficult indeed, if I may say so, than perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Cork, appreciates. Nevertheless, I do hope the Government will do something to cure the undoubtedly unfortunate position that arises now, which may do harm to our relations with that great friendly country across the Atlantic.

LORD MORRIS

My Lords, I just want to say a very brief word about this very dirty public scandal which has now gone on for three years. My first word must be one of thanks and gratitude to the noble and gallant Earl who has raised the subject here with all the prestige and authority which his name and the position he has held in this country carry. I have held my peace on the subject for three years. Like the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, I too have a personal interest in this matter and it is very difficult for me to speak on it with restraint. Now, however, that the matter has been brought up I will be quite frank with your Lordships and say that I have a wife and children over there and while Lord Radnor has two children I have four children there and unfortunately my sponsors have fallen down altogether.

The matter has a very important Imperial aspect which has been touched on a little by several speakers but which I am sure noble Lords like Viscount Bennett and Lord Beaverbrook, from their experience, will recognize as vitally important. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will also appreciate that this Government consciously, unconsciously or subconsciously have perhaps been blind to it; perhaps they have not been able to help themselves, but I hope this state of affairs will not be allowed to continue. Are we sure that our Government have not explored the fact that the women and children over there are being supported to our immense gain, direct and indirect, by Canadians and. Americans to all intents and purposes, free of charge? If these women and children—and I am told there are many thousands of them— had remained in this country they would have had to be looked after by fire rescue squads and air raid wardens and so on. We have gained enormously. Do not let us delude ourselves into thinking that Americans and Canadians are blind to that. They know that we have gained enormously by this removal of women and children. What do they say? I do not claim the same knowledge of the United States as the two noble Lords I have mentioned, but I was born on the other side of the Atlantic and I have crossed the Atlantic many times and have lived on the other side. There are a great many who regard us as a nation of pikers who do not pay our debts and who have not paid our debts incurred in the last war. Do not imagine that Americans are blind to the fact that we have gained. And we have gained enormously.

I suggest to His Majesty's Government that for the reasons that have been mentioned, and not for any personal reasons, they should attempt at once to put this matter right, and pay something towards the keep of these women and children of ours who are being entertained over there. As has been pointed out already, the picture has changed very considerably since they went. No one could have foreseen that the war would last so long, and certainly it was not foreseen by their hosts. I do not know which particular dolt in Whitehall thought of the crazy sum of ten pounds for an adult and three pounds for a child, but anyone who knows conditions over on the other side of the Atlantic will tell you that it is perfectly useless. It means that these women and children are practically dependent upon charity for the necessities of life. That allowance given by the British Government may possibly enable them to subsist but no more. It takes no account of growing children, no account of clothing, no account of doctor's or dentist's bills. The responsible Press in this country have taken a very kind and helpful attitude about this and I hope we can count still on their help.

It must be remembered that for three years—a very long time—these homeless people on the other side of the Atlantic have been looking into other people's mirrors; trying to find a corner of their own to live in, and a window of their own to look through. No doubt it will be said that these people knew what they were doing. They knew that sterling could not be sent across the Atlantic. I have not sent and would not try to send sterling from this country in excess of the amount permitted, but I did send money from the Middle East and the Government in Whitehall clamped down on that. If I had not seen it myself I would not have believed it and would not tell your Lordships of a cable sent from the Secretary of State to the High Commissioner of Palestine. That cable was to this effect: "Understand you have permitted Flight Lieutenant Lord Morris"—a very junior and insignificant member of the Royal Air Force—"to remit money for the support of his wife and children. Please stop this." That to me seems incredible. That was in 1941 when, your Lordships will remember, we were about to launch an offensive in Libya, when the German hordes were at the gates of Moscow, and an hourly conflagration was expected in the Far East. Is it not amazing that a Secretary of State could not find something more important to claim his attention and that of his minions than the financial affairs of a very junior Air Force officer?

That gives some idea of the length to which the Government are prepared to go, I do not say deliberately to prevent a man supporting his wife and children —that would be absurd—in the sacred name of the war effort and what must be done to help it. Your Lordships have heard what has been said by others on this subject and will not think it is some idea that has just occurred to me. It is a matter on which a considerable body of public opinion is deeply exercised and if the Government think it a small or trivial matter they are quite mistaken. I beg the Government to remember that, although the war effort is very important and although almost everything must be subsidiary to it, we have a reputation for looking after women and children and a reputation for decency which to some of us is more important than dollars.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, there can be no doubt that there is very great feeling about this matter in the country and therefore it is well that members of your Lordships' House who have strong opinions on it should speak their minds. I have no personal grounds for being interested, but I have paid several visits to Canada and the United States since the war began and have had occasion to see at close quarters how this matter works. I am sure many people in this country will feel gratitude to the noble Earl for having raised the question. In my opinion it should have been discussed in your Lordships' House long ago. Last year, when I returned from Canada and United States, I felt so strongly about it that I took some trouble to get corroboration of some facts which had been given me. I went to the Treasury. There the officials offered what they considered were very good reasons for what had been done hitherto, and gave me to understand that the matter was then under review.

I do not want to deal with the two main grounds suggested for the inadequacy of the money allowance—one the question of international relations and the other personal hardship. I approach the matter on the ground that there must be one of two reasons, either a question of exchange or a question of deterrent influence. After all, the amount involved in actual sterling is small. If it were a question of exchange I should have thought it would be more easy to criticize the action of other Departments than that of the Treasury. There is, for instance, the policy of the Board of Trade with regard to exports. A very little latitude in present policy would easily contribute the exchange necessary to make possible the correction of this matter. The position, it seems to me, is more likely to be explained by some deliberate purpose of deterrent influence. The suggestion has been made that the children should be brought back. It so happens that, on two occasions when I was crossing the Atlantic children were among the passengers. The feeling I had was that to send children as passengers across the Atlantic then meant doing a disservice to the nation, because in the event of a ship foundering where was the burden of danger going to fall? It was going to fall on the shoulders of the Mercantile Marine personnel who would have the duty of saving the children at the risk of their own lives. On these grounds I profoundly disagree with the proposal that facilities should be given to these children to come back. Knowing the strength of feeling that there is amongst the personnel of the. Mercantile Marine I think it only right that their views should be voiced here to-day.

My last word is this: that while realizing that the Treasury may well be faced with difficulties, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government will give some information to the House to the effect that these amounts have already been reviewed and liberally increased. If this is not done I hope that my noble and gallant friend who has moved this Motion will press most strongly for further reconsideration of the matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

My Lords, this is a difficult subject. On the one hand it arouses in every one of us a deep feeling of gratitude to generous people in Canada and in the United States; and not merely a feeling of gratitude, it arouses also a feeling of obligation. Certainly everyone may be sure that that feeling will be nowhere more deeply appreciated than here in your Lordships' House. On the other hand, your Lordships will, I hope, allow me to say that it would be doing very little justice to the difficulty of this subject to suppose that this was merely the edict of some crazy—I think "crazy" was the word used—and curmudgeonly person in the Treasury; in this instance the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is known to every well-instructed man, of course, that the difficulty here arises out of the overwhelming necessity of dollar exchange. At the very beginning of the war, the Treasury made regulations restricting in every sort of way the transmission of sterling from this country—or from the Near East by British people, which is exactly the same thing. The Treasury made most careful regulations about it. Those regulations were not made in panic; they were the subject of long discussion by those who make it their life's work to understand such questions. Those regulations have had this very remarkable result—which is certainly in striking contrast to what has happened in other wars, or in other countries—that we have been able to so large an extent to maintain the value of the pound. We have been able to limit our call for dollar exchange, and nobody can estimate to what extent that has contributed, and is still contributing, both to our own victory and to the general success of the Allies.

That half of the matter is very difficult. The Treasury have to some extent made me acquainted with the subject but I am far from professing to speak as an expert upon it. It would be regrettable if we should have a debate in this House on the basis that these considerations were not of the very gravest importance. Of course they are. That was the reason why, at the time when this country was threatened with the danger, it might be, of immediate invasion, and when Germany was letting loose her Blitzkrieg over our cities, in spite of the strong natural prompting of so many parents that they would like to get their children away, and of the feelings of so many husbands that they would like to get their wives out of the way to some place of safety, the Treasury had to say: "We will help you all we can but we cannot consent to your making arrangements for sending your family away with the result that there will be a transmission of sterling and damage will be done to our dollar exchange." I hope that by this time it is appreciated by every student of currency questions that the Treasury were rendering an immense service to the country by the insistence which they put upon that proposition.

Speaking broadly, these children now on the other side of the Atlantic, were either sent over under the auspices of the Children's Overseas Reception Board—in which case it meant the acceptance of an offer to receive them, an offer of magnificent generosity for which we cannot be too grateful, an offer made by the Canadian Government which they have never sought to go back upon—or else these children were sent in the circumstances mentioned by one of your Lordships today. In the latter case an undertaking was required before they sailed that the child evacuee would be maintained on the other side of the Atlantic without any call being made in this country for sterling. Definite arrangements were made with definite hosts and hostesses. I need not use many words here in expressing what everybody feels towards those people. We are indeed under a very deep debt of gratitude to them. As I was saying, to treat this as though it were merely a piece of curmudgeonly, hard-hearted ignorant folly on the part of Whitehall is not a method of discussion which will appeal to any of your Lordships who are at all well-informed on this subject. Your Lordships will understand very well the importance of maintaining our ability to finance the war overseas. This does call for constant and regular watchfulness in all directions where you get transmissions from this country or transmissions by British subjects from other points which, of course, involves the use of British banks.

I quite agree that the situation has changed, as my noble friend has said; it certainly has changed, and there has been a change in the treatment of the matter on this side; because, as my noble friend Lord Barnby indicated just now, when the original arrangements were made and these children left this country in 1940, the rule had to be imposed quite strictly that no provision of any sort or kind could be made from this country. That is a very hard thing for parents who are able and would like to contribute. It is a very hard thing, I quite agree, as between the friendly people on the other side and the people of this country. I thoroughly appreciate the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, when he said that it is good feeling between the peoples, and not merely between the Treasuries and the Governments, which we have to think of here. That, I think, is quite true, and that is the reason why, at a later stage, in 1942, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the announcement which he then did make, and with a copy of which I have been provided by the Treasury so that I may read it to the House.

Here I must for a moment follow the example of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I cannot mention the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without saying quite simply how shocking to all his friends is the tragic and wholly unexpected news of his death this morning. I saw him, and spent some time pleasantly chatting with him, on a railway platform last Sunday evening, waiting for the arrival of a great man, and nobody appeared to be in higher spirits or in better health. Like others of your Lordships, I have had constant dealings with him over a long series of years. It would be quite out of place to attempt now any elaborate estimate of his qualities, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this one sentence. The public owe a great deal to the calm judgment, to the staunch resolution and to the unwearied industry of the late Sir Kingsley Wood. His sudden passing from the scene is a grave loss not only to his colleagues but to the country.

What my friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did—and I was in touch with him at the time, because I was interested in the subject, and I know the pains he took about it—was to discuss this matter, as his duty was, with the Canadian Government. He considered what could be done in view of his own responsibilities at the Treasury, and he made the provision which has been referred to. Your Lordships will allow me to observe that it would be quite wrong to treat the very moderate allowances then announced as though they were an attempt by the Treasury or by anybody else to measure how much was needed to maintain people in Canada or in the United States. That had absolutely nothing to do with it. No wonder one noble Lord used strong language about it; he seemed to think that the figures fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were estimated to be the equivalent of necessary maintenance. That is not so at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has pointed out. This was, however, a provision which was at any rate of some value in itself, and a token of our desire to break the iron stringency of this rule. It was accordingly arranged that permission would be given for the remittance from this country of sums not exceeding £3 a month for any child under sixteen at the time of departure, and in addition of sums not exceeding £10 per month for any adult who left this country in charge of children and who was still shown to be responsible for them.

It is not that this country or that this nation is not willing that more than that should be provided, if it could be done. This is an adjustment, in respect of a very difficult technical matter, in the light of all the claims made on our resources in connexion with the dollar exchange. It is important to add, moreover, that there is another provision which has operated very freely, and which is of a very much more generous character— namely, that the special circumstances of a particular case have always been taken into account, and applications for additional remittances on grounds of hardship or for medical or surgical help in a particular case have always been given favourable consideration. I was very glad to hear from my noble friend Lord Marchwood that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald had explained that side of the matter to him, because your Lordships may be assured that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, who in Canada is in the closest touch with the Canadian Government, has also been in the closest touch with the Government at home; and I know that on the last occasion when he was here, only a few weeks ago, this was one of the matters which he brought prominently forward, in the general interest and in the interest both of Canada and of ourselves. That, then, is the policy—a very limited allowance in the ordinary case, but with full and effective consideration given to meet exceptional circumstances which call for it.

I quite appreciate that that does not remove the sense of grievance and frustration on the part, it may be, of the husband who, of course, wants to send sufficient over to maintain his wife and children—a most natural feeling—but the fact must be faced that these evacuees were permitted to be sent only on the distinct and written promise that nothing of the sort would be done, and it therefore had to be left to the Government to decide how far they could go in view of the developments which might take place.

I do not think that the Motion by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, or the question by my noble friend Lord Marchwood, raises the other matter— namely, the question of getting the children back here. That is quite a different matter and does not affect any issue relating to the dollar exchange, as far as I can see; but, as one or two of your Lordships have said, there are other considerations which are involved. I am not prepared to deal with that alternative aspect of the matter to-day, but I am quite willing to see that attention is called to it again, if that is what the House desires. I am very sorry that I am not able, in answering the Motion to-day, to make any further announcement. Nothing would have given me greater personal satisfaction than to be able to do so, but any announcement on this subject must be made with the authority of the Treasury, and I have no right to use language which goes beyond that which Sir Kingsley Wood authorized me to use in the paper which I hold in my hand.

In conclusion, however, let me assure your Lordships of this. This is certainly not a matter which is treated by the Government as trivial. It is not a matter which is regarded as decided once and for all, and as incapable of revision. The fact is that it is being carefully considered whenever occasion offers. I am not able to say, and it would not be right to say, more than that to-day; but I do hope that your Lordships will appreciate that it is not out of stinginess or muddle-headedness but out of a bounden duty to protect our resources for the purposes of maintaining the main struggle that it has been necessary for the Treasury in con- nexion with this matter, as indeed in connexion with a great many others, to impose so strict a regulation, which, as I thoroughly understand, presses so hardly upon the consciences and the wishes of individuals whose children have gone overseas.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether there would be any indiscretion in asking for a disclosure of the amount involved in this matter?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have not the figures here.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

My Lords, I must thank the noble and learned Viscount for his answer, though I confess I feel that to some extent I have been lectured in a way which I did not deserve. I stated quite clearly, when moving my Motion, that I entirely appreciated the necessity for having these regulations at the time, and I tried to point out that it was because we were talking then of 100,000 more children going. The amount that is now involved, however, is so small that, with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, I cannot believe that it is going to have much effect upon our national finances. There are so many financial arrangements which must be made that a sort of book-keeping entry is surely all that is necessary. I do not often go and have a chat with the Treasury, but I try to understand these things as far as I am able to do so. I can quite appreciate the necessity of carefully nursing the dollar exchange. I would point out, too, that while parents may have given an undertaking about not asking questions or sending remittances, that does not bind other people who have not made that declaration and who may consider it their duty to bring these matters up. I do not wish to go any further. I see a gleam of hope in what the Lord Chancellor said. I trust that before long he may be able to enlarge that bridgehead. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.