Lords Sitting of 20 December 1944

Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  SUPPLIES FOR THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, I beg to ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice. The question is as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government whether private parcels may be sent in s.s. "Vega" on her second sailing to jersey and Guernsey; whether letters as distinct from messages of 25 words may be sent in her in either direction; and whether a collier carrying coal and other fuel will also sent to the islands.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, His Majesty's Government would have been glad if provision could have been made for the sending of private parcels, but this would have raised special difficulties and owing to the limited shipping space available they considered that the population can best be served by the dispatch of standard food parcels for general distribution. I regret that His Majesty's Government can hold out no hope of an ordinary letter service before the liberation of the islands. The question of fuel is receiving consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.
  LORD PORTSEA: May I ask the noble Lord whether, if this ship arrives and all goes well, the service will be continued by further voyages, for the amount of food sent in her on each trip is very small compared with the number of inhabitants?
  TEE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, that is so.

BRITISH FORCES IN THE FAR EAST
12.10 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wish to put the following question of which I have given private notice: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they
426
have any statement to make on the visit recently made by the Earl of Munster to the India and South-East Asia Commands with a view to reporting on the welfare arrangements and amenities provided for Service personnel in those Commands.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to make a statement, I fear at some length. Noble Lords have very properly been concerned about the welfare of our Forces serving in the Far East. The Service Departments and in particular the War Office, who have the greatest interest in this subject, have for many months made preparations in conjunction with the Government of India for the reception of the great Forces which are assembled in the Far-Eastern theatre, and not least among their activities has been the provision of such stores and equipment as may be necessary on a reasonable basis for the well-being arid contentment of those Forces. But the time has now come when the influence of the Government machine as a whole, civil as well as military, must be brought to bear upon this important question. As the House will be aware, I recently made a tour of India and the Burma Front for the purpose of examining the situation on the spot and reporting to the Government about the improvements which are required. My Report is being published as a White Paper and will be available to noble Lords during the course of the afternoon.
My Report calls attention to a number of matters in which I consider improvement is urgently required. At the same time I have endeavoured to point out the difficulties which have had to be faced by the authorities charged with these matters, and I hope my Report may be considered as a fair picture of the situation. It is important, in arriving at a judgment on these matters, to realize that the task of providing suitable amenities for troops serving in the East is far more intricate and harder than for troops serving in European conditions. The great spaces to be covered, the lack of ordinary European amenities of life anywhere but in large towns, and the small numbers of European women who can devote their services voluntarily to the provision of amenities, are great handicaps. The Government of India since 1942 have had to receive a very large increase in the number of

427
European troops in India, and their resources have been strained to the utmost to provide accommodation and to fulfil military construction programmes essential for operations. I am satisfied that a great deal has been done to improve and expand welfare facilities for the British Forces but clearly more can be achieved if additional resources and personnel can be provided from outside India.
His Majesty's Government will apply themselves energetically to this problem and the Government of India and the South-East Asia Commands have already been asked for a detailed statement of the help they require to make good the deficiencies in the welfare field to which I have drawn attention in my Report. One of our first concerns is naturally the welfare of the sick and wounded and I have visited no fewer than 34 hospitals in the course of my tour. I am glad to say that I was satisfied that the medical facilities are maintained at a high standard of efficiency in spite of the administrative difficulties of an extended front and poor communications. Nevertheless, I have drawn attention to certain shortages of medical personnel in India. These are the reflection of general shortages. Every effort will be made to improve the position but the Government have, of course, to pay regard to the many other claims, both civilian and Service, on the available supply of doctors and nurses. I am glad to report that consideration is being given urgently to my proposal that further members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment should be sent out to India.
In some directions it will not be possible to achieve what we desire until the defeat of Germany enables greater resources to be diverted to the East, but plans have been made and directions are being given so that when these greater resources become available they can be diverted without loss of time to the amelioration of the conditions of service of the men and women of the Services and the Merchant Navy who are called upon to continue the fight against Japan. At that stage a greater volume of air transport will become available. This will render practicable improvement in the facilities for the conveyance of fresh food and other comforts to the troops in the Far East and also the movement of men on urgent compassionate leave and,
428
to some extent, on ordinary leave from the front. It will also make possible wider use of air transport for the evacuation of casualties and the improvement of the transport of mails. I am glad to say that a plan is being prepared under which the rapidity of mails can be progressively improved and the charges reduced. The immediate target is to carry by air all letter mail to the Forces and it is hoped to achieve this early in 1945.
I have drawn attention in my Report to the inadequacy of accommodation in leave centres and static camps in the Far-Eastern theatre, and a thorough revision of the present scales of accommodation and amenities of these centres and camps has already been ordered. Attention is also being given to the adoption of modern methods of construction, the extension of fly-proofing of buildings, and the provision of greater quantities of modern appurtenances, including refrigerators, shower baths and good furniture. These improvements will proceed as far as our resources permit. Special attention is also being given to the provision of a varied diet and up-to-date hygienic systems of preparing and cooking food. I am glad to say that measures are being taken as a matter of urgency which will, in due course, improve the supplies of beer available for the Forces in India. I am satisfied that Indian production of beer has already been expanded to the fullest possible extent which is practicable without the import of raw materials and plant, but it is hoped that it will be possible to increase further both imported supplies and Indian production. Arrangements are also well advanced to produce in India cigarettes of a type more palatable to British troops and trial brands have already been issued with a view to large-scale production when it is known which type is preferred by the men.
I found in the course of my tour shortages of cinema apparatus and wireless equipment, but I am glad to say that measures are in hand to accelerate the provision of this equipment, most of which, incidentally, can only be obtained from the United States. The value of the work done by British women for the wellbeing of the troops in India, has been proved. Steps are now being taken to encourage more British women, both those who are resident in India now and volun-

429
teers from home, to undertake this important and valuable contribution to the welfare of the troops. As noble Lords are probably aware, canteen services are not the responsibility of N.A.A.F.I. in India. but the Government of India are taking special steps to improve and enlarge local organization.
It has been decided that special consideration will be given to Service men and their families in assessing priorities for the allotment of houses and furniture after the war. The wives and families of Service men engaged in the Far-Eastern theatre will, of course, share in this preferential treatment. In order that Service men overseas may keep abreast of important developments in social policy at home, pamphlets explaining new legislation or methods on matters of major importance will be prepared and distributed to Service men and merchant seamen. The House will probably have observed that in recent months a good deal more attention has been paid by the general public in this country to the efforts and achievements of our men in the Far East. The Ministry of Information and other authorities concerned recognize that this sympathetic interest must be fed by a service of reliable information as to all that goes on there. Both the authorities at home and those in control of information on the spot will continue their efforts to maintain and improve the sources of such a service. Although no mention is made in my Report, I have drawn the Prime Minister's attention to the uncertainty which prevails in the minds of many of the men on the subject of the length of time for which they will be required to serve in the East, and my right honourable friend is making a statement of some length concerning this subject.
Noble Lords should know that His Majesty's Government are paying constant attention to the needs of the men and women serving in the Far East. The Prime Minister has issued instructions to those concerned on the spot and to Departments here that, in relation to operational needs, a higher priority must be given to the requirements for welfare and amenities for the Forces in the Far East than hitherto. He has also, at the desire of the Secretary of State for War, appointed Lieutenant-General King to be his personal representative in the India and South-East Asia Commands for welfare matters. It will be General King's
430
duty to ascertain how matters are progressing and to report on difficulties which may arise and on the assistance which is required from this country. He will also be concerned with the welfare of all three Services and the Merchant Navy and will have a staff suitably composed for that purpose. The rapidity with which improvements can be effected must to a large extent depend on the progress of the war in Europe, but we shall press on in the meantime with measures for which our resources are available.
Finally, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, to the Commander-in-Chief, General Sir Claude Auchinleck, to the Supreme Allied Commander, Lord Louis Mountbatten, and to all other ranks who were ready and prepared to assist me in my inquiry and answer my searching questions. I could not let this opportunity pass without telling your Lordships of the great personal interest which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken in this subject. Throughout the whole course of my tour in India and Burma, I was in constant touch with my right honourable friend and I am deeply grateful for the assistance he has given me and for his kindness in sending me on this important and interesting journey.
Loan FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his very full reply. We are, of course, all looking forward to the White Paper that has been promised for this afternoon. I think it likely that when we have seen the White Paper we shall wish to discuss it in the new year. I am sure that the Forces in the Far East will be deeply indebted to the noble Earl for the inquiry which he has made and the results that will flow from it.

UNIFYING FORCES OF EUROPE.
12.20 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Templewood—namely, to resolve, That the unifying forces of Europe stand in urgent need of strengthening, and in particular that every European citizen should be ensured of certain fundamental rights and liberties without which European civilization cannot continue.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I think your Lordships' House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Viscount Templewood for having raised this question and having produced what seems to me a very interesting and valuable debate. We are also delighted to take this opportunity of welcoming him to our discussions and expressing the hope that we may often have the pleasure of hearing him. The subject he has raised is, I entirely agree with him, of the very first importance. He has very rightly said that the evils arising from the aggressive policy of Germany are not confined merely to material destruction, or even to the loss of very valuable lives; they have also produced a very serious degradation of international morals and a throwback to conditions which we had hoped had long passed away. I think it is important that we should inquire how it is that this has happened.
I do not belong to that section of opinion which believes that the Germans are congenitally more wicked than anybody else. I believe they are human beings and can be misled by bad teaching and bad example, but that they are an entirely different kind of creature to ourselves I do not believe. I believe that for many years they have been indulging—particularly the intellectual classes in Germany—in speculation and teaching which were bound to produce most disastrous effects. It is not only during the war that there has been conducted in Germany, as your Lordships are very well aware, a prolonged, elaborate and continued assault on the Christian religion, or at any rate on many of its essential doctrines. That was going on long before the war and had already produced before the war began these utterly indefensible persecutions of Jews and other religious bodies—the Roman Catholic body and others—which had no kind of justification except the very worst it could have. During the war these attacks have gone on and got worse. Something has already been said in this debate about the attacks on Jews, Roman Catholics and Protestants. The case of Pastor Niemoller is only one of many similar cases, and one which, though it has not been so bloody as some of the persecutions, has been quite as indefensible as any one of them.
All these things have gone on and have produced the ordinary result. Many
432
people have suffered from them, there have been many martyrs of all sections of religious opinion, and there has been an attempt by the German leaders to substitute for Christianity and Judaism a kind of new religion which consisted in deification of Germany with Hitler as its chief prophet. That seems to me to be the real source of the worst feature of what has happened in the German conduct of the war, and I do not think we shall really succeed, as far as we can do anything, in curing the evil unless we consider what the evil really is, as I have ventured to do in a very few words, and fasten our minds on that as the real cause of the trouble. I listened with great interest to my noble friend's suggestions as to what might be done by creating some kind of international body which could investigate and recommend remedies for the state of things which exists in Germany. I certainly do not want to say a word to discourage any proposals of that kind. I believe that the more the matter is talked of and brought out into public, and the more it becomes quite clear what is really the trouble, the more chance there is of some really effective remedy. But I am bound to admit that I doubt very much whether anything in the nature of political action from outside is likely to produce much effect. I hope my noble friend will not think me unduly discouraging if I say that an attempt to force from the outside on the various countries, including Germany, what he regards, and rightly regards, as elementary human rights, is almost certain to produce very little result.
I was interested the other day to receive a circular from the United Evangelical Alliance—I have no doubt many of your Lordships also received it—in which they complain bitterly of the intolerance, and worse than intolerance, of the present Spanish Government. They cite this rather striking fact, which I think has a considerable bearing on the proposals of my noble friend. After describing what is going on in Spain in that respect, they say:
"Under the régime of General Franco religious liberty does not exist in Spain although General Franco promised to the present Spanish Ambassador at the Court of St. James, the Duke of Alba, that in the event of a Nationalist victory in the late Spanish war he would grant full religious liberty to all classes and creeds alike in Spain. This promise was given at a conference of representatives of the united Christian Churches of this country in

433
London and was subsequently renewed in a letter in the columns of The Times. The promise, however, has not been fulfilled …"
That is the difficulty you are in. The forms of government which produce the moral degradation that my noble friend deplores are very difficult to deal with by political action. You will get plenty of verbal assents to the improvement you desire to see established, but when it comes to the effective remedies that ought to be applied you will find it very difficult to induce Governments to do anything, and you really have no remedy if they do not do what they have promised to do.
It is quite evident you could not really take any serious action—at least I think you could not—because they have refused to grant their subjects any of the rights which you think they ought to grant. I do not mean by that that we ought to do nothing, or that we can do nothing. I recognize that the difficulties are very great, and they are quite as great if I am right in thinking that what is required is religious reformation. It is perhaps even more difficult to enforce any improvement in that respect than in matters of political or public conduct. I do not think that much can be done by political action or the action of Governments. I feel very strongly that the great: mass of the work in that direction must be left to the Churches and other religious agencies. I was very much encouraged, and I am sure that your Lordships were also, by the very hopeful attitude which was adopted by the Archbishop of York and the Lord Bishop of Chichester as to the possibility of joint Christian action in this direction. They read a number of extracts, from various documents which have been published, which certainly seemed to support their hopeful attitude.
But although that is what ought to be done and can be done—and it will, I hope, produce great effects—I am afraid that the United Nations and the Governments, the kind of agencies that we in this House can address and stimulate, will be able to do very little directly. I think there are two points on which they may be of use. One is by maintaining peace. So long as it is quite evident that war is the very enemy of all the moral progress that my noble friend desires to see. I think that they can do that. I shall have a word to say in a moment
434
about steps which the Government seem inclined to take in certain matters. The second thing they can do is to preserve in their own conduct in this country and —so far as they can influence it—in the conduct of their Allies, a high standard of international action. I think that that is very important. It is no use setting up a most elaborate organization for improving international affairs, or even creating such a body as my noble friend desires in order to inculcate better conduct on the part of Governments if the Allied Governments who are the authors of these adjurations are carrying on a policy which is very difficult to square with anything like an improved international morale.
My noble friend the Leader of the House in a speech with which I had the honour to be almost wholly in agreement apologized for making any reference to the Greek position. I confess that I thought an apology quite unnecessary. It is quite evident that anything that is thought to militate against the rightness of our conduct in international affairs is directly germane to the objects which my noble friend has in view in his Motion. I am not going to conduct any elaborate inquiry into the Greek situation. This would be a very unfortunate opportunity for me to take for a purpose of that kind. But I do feel that the immense interest it has excited in this country, and the very great fervour with which sides are being taken on that question, are a tribute to the remarkable political instinct of this country. It is not only that there are people who sympathize with the Greeks and think they are being ill-treated, but they feel very deeply that it is an awful blot on the success of our policy that now we should actually be fighting one of our Allies on a matter which they, or some of them, think directly affects the very causes for which we went to war.
I cannot improve on the statement which my noble friend the Leader of the House made yesterday on the general policy which the Government desire to pursue. It seemed to me to be an admirable statement of exactly what they ought to be doing, and I was quite happy about it. The same applies to what the Prime Minister said in his remarkable speech on the subject. I am not referring so much to his brilliant fireworks, which were, no doubt, designed for the delectation of the House of Commons but which, perhaps,

435
do not have the same diplomatic value as some other parts of his speech. But his general statement of the principles which the Government desire to pursue seems to me to be admirable. I have no criticism at all to make of it. The only thing I admit which has not yet been explained is this: having these admirable principles and the desire to pursue them, how is it that not only the extremists in Greece but apparently a very large proportion of the relatively indifferent members of that community have taken the very deplorable action which they have taken in this matter? Does not that point to some failure to get over to the Greeks what our policy really is? I do not wish to suggest where the failure may have taken place. But I do think that that is a thing to which the Government ought to devote their attention, and see that the failure, if failure there has been, shall not arise in this case of Greece any more, or in other cases which are certain to come forward before we can hope to get back to anything like general peaceful conditions in Europe.
I would only add this one observation. We have all seen a very interesting and encouraging suggestion that the Archbishop of Athens should be appointed Regent. Certainly, I confess, that seems to me to be an admirable suggestion. I earnestly hope that if it is opposed on any grounds by any individual or Party, however exalted that individual or Party may be, the opposition shall not be allowed to hinder the adoption of what seems to me a most excellent proposal. That is all I desire to say about Greece. I only mention it for the same reason my noble friend mentioned it, that is as a kind of test as to what the spirit is going to be by which we hope to reform, improve and strengthen the morale of Europe.
When I come to Poland, it seems to me to be another case. The policy that is proposed to be pursued in Poland, as I understand it, is, broadly, this: that a certain portion from the south-east of what was Poland before the war is to be transferred to Russia, and that compensation is to be provided for Poland in the north by the transfer to her of what was certainly before the war, and indeed for many centuries, the German province of East Prussia. I have nothing to say at all as to any German grievance in the matter; I fully admit that the
436
Germans cannot be heard on that point at all. I must say, however, that this seems to be a disagreeable reminiscence of the worst type of pre-war diplomacy in its very nature. I do not want to go back to the Atlantic Charter unduly, particularly after the very interesting exposition which the President of the United States has given as to the way in which the Atlantic Charter was constructed; but in point of fact the broad principle that territory should not be transferred from one Government to another except with the consent of its inhabitants is a very sound one. It is not because there is a promise to this person or to that person, but because the consent of the people is the very essence and foundation of democracy. I therefore look with great anxiety on this proposal, and my anxiety is scarcely removed at all by the complementary suggestion that in order to enable this to be done the whole of the German population of East Prussia is to be conveyed to some part of Germany, wherever room can be found for them.
I gather that that is to be done extensively, so that something like five million Germans are to be transfered from the places where they now live, and lived before the war, to some unknown position in Germany, and their places are to be taken by Poles or Russians. I am not concerned with any question of justice or injustice to Germany, because I agree that she has no right to complain, considering what she has done, of any action which may be of use to the peace of the world; but what I am afraid of is that when an attempt is made to carry this proposal out the practical difficulties will turn out to be very great. I have had a little indirect experience of transfers of population, and I know that the difficulties are very great. They produce the greatest possible discomfort; they involve very complicated questions of government and so on. What I am frankly terrified will in fact be the result is that after transferring a certain number of these Germans back to Germany it will be found almost impracticable to go on with the experiment. We cannot adopt the methods which the Germans themselves have tried to adopt—quite unsuccessfully—which consist, roughly, of the murder of anybody who objects to what they do. I hope and trust and believe that we shall not be able to do that; people in this country would not be a party to action of that

437
kind. It will have to be done by persuasion and by moderate means.
The result will be that it will break down, and in this new province to be transferred to Poland the mass of the population will still be hostile to the Government to which they have been transferred. This would seem to me to be the most reckless kind of policy, it that turns out to be the result. It means keeping alive in an important part of Europe a perpetual sore which, sooner or later, is bound to produce disturbance and probably a war similar to that which we are now enduring. I very earnestly beg the Government to consider again whether there is not some way of avoiding this very serious result. I cannot help thinking that in some way or other it ought to be possible to avoid settling anything finally during the progress of the war with regard to transfers of territory. It seems to me a reckless thing to attempt to do. I gather from something which fell from the Prime Minister that he agrees that it would be better to delay action until after the war, when at any rate there will be some prospect of a general cooling of spirits and lessening of irritation. In the meantime, is it not possible to arrive at some kind of modus vivendi which will enable Russians and Poles alike to concentrate on the defeat of Germany, which is the first essential to anything being done, leaving the final settlement and the real settlement to be disposed of after the most careful inquiry and impartial consideration, which can be provided only at the end of the war, and indeed, as I think, only after there has been recreated some kind of international organization which will command at any rate a measure of assent from all the countries of the world?
It is for that reason, among others, that I most heartily support and agree with everything that fell from my noble friend the Leader of the House as to the Dumbarton Oaks scheme. I am sure that that is the way out; and the sooner that that can be brought into being and set to work the better the chance of settling all these international questions, which are bound to arise more and more as the war comes to an end. I very earnestly hope, therefore, that we shall push forward with that scheme to the utmost of our power. I feel that the very foundation on which the scheme rests is that if there is a difference between countries which is in-
438
soluble by free agreement it must be referred to the decision of some third party, some party as impartial as can be devised. That is one of the foundations on which the whole of the Dumbarton Oaks scheme rests. I think that it would be really disastrous if before it came into existence we and other Powers who have been advocating this scheme indulged in a form of diplomacy and territorial resettlement which really belongs to an age which must be definitely put aside if we are to build anything permanent or satisfactory in the world. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long, but I was very anxious to say what I have said.
12.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy with the ideas put forward by the noble Viscount who moved this Resolution in his eloquent and thought-provoking speech. I should like to add my tribute of praise to those which have already been paid. I shall not pretend to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, into the questions of detail which he has raised regarding Germany, regarding Greece and regarding Poland; but I must say that I most strongly dissent from his views as regards East Prussia. I will explain to your Lordships the reason why I hold so strongly that East Prussia should go to Poland when this war is finished. The noble Viscount quoted in support of what lie said the Atlantic Charter. Yes, I can quote the Atlantic Charter too in support of my views, and that is in the statement that security is the most important factor in the post-war world. I would add that as far as East Prussia goes it must be remembered that there is a very large population of Polish origin, mostly peasants, which is still resident in that province. I would like to make another point. There will have to be a very large transfer of population in any case. The Germans have moved some eight or ten million people and those people must be resettled in their homes, and I cannot believe that the additional problem of placing a considerable number, say two millions or even more, of Germans back in Germany would present a difficulty which cannot be overcome.
Now I am going to leave that Polish problem and go back to the large principles which are embodied in the Motion put forward by the noble Viscount. He very rightly laid great stress

439
on the need for every man, woman and child to feel that in the post-war world they can individually and as a family live out their lives in freedom from fear and freedom from want. In this connexion I would like to lay stress on the importance of the family as the central unit and indeed as the foundation of our European civilization. Sometimes perhaps too much importance is attached to the rights of individuals and the claim of the family tends to be forgotten; yet that claim is fundamental and must be fully recognized and met. It seems to me that the main object of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals is to secure in the international field the first two of the four freedoms enunciated by President Roosevelt—freedom from fear and freedom from want. Freedom from fear—that is, freedom from the terrible disturbance caused by war or the threat of war. Freedom from want. That is admirably expressed in Point 5 of the Atlantic Charter:
"… the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security."
It is true that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals do not specifically deal with the two other great freedoms, the free exercise of religion without fear of any manner of persecution, and freedom of speech. How are these to be assured? Because they must be assured. We can no longer treat these aspects of the basic liberty of the individual as matters of purely domestic jurisdiction. We have experienced the evils and the far-spreading results of such acquiescence. I need only mention—it has already been mentioned—the terrible persecution of the Jews by Hitler. These problems really transcend national boundaries and are of universal concern.
The noble Viscount laid down a rule that we should not interfere in the domestic policy of foreign countries. That is a very good and salutary rule from day to day, but I feel that there must be exceptions. In fact, we have already made one exception; we have definitely said that in liberated territories we would not permit the formation of Fascist Governments. There may be widespread outrages on human individuals which would rouse the conscience of this country, and I hope the conscience of the world, to such a degree that interference may be absolutely necessary. I am speaking in the best
440
Liberal tradition. I have in mind the great campaign against the Turkish atrocities in Bulgaria conducted by Mr. Gladstone in 1880. I therefore strongly support the plea of the noble Viscount when he suggested that the United Nations should discuss the question of the establishment of a minimum standard of human rights, and I am glad to note that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House more or less agreed that such an examination should take place.
Whether or not it will be found practicable to set up a permanent organization on the lines of the International Labour Office, as suggested by the noble Viscount, I am frankly rather doubtful, and I am not sure that it would be necessary. For the time I would prefer to suspend judgment. We must remember that after the war there will be no censorship, and the Press and the wireless will report very fully and very widely any serious attacks on the human individual, and action might be taken on those reports. But I do feel that a beginning could certainly be made by ensuring that nations refusing to subscribe to such a minimum charter of human rights should be debarred from entering the new international organization foreshadowed by the Moscow Declaration and defined in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. That organisation is to be open to all peace-loving nations. I very much doubt whether a nation that consistently persecutes its own subjects can be brought into the category of peace-loving.
There is a passage in a joint statement which was made by the Catholic Bishops of the United States which expressed far better than I can the principles which I believe should govern any discussion between the United Nations on these tremendous issues. I should therefore like to read it to your Lordships:
"We hold that if there is to be genuine and lasting world peace the international organization should demand as a condition of membership that every nation guarantee in law and respect in fact the innate rights of men, families and minority groups in their civil and religious life.
"Surely our generation should know that tyranny in any nation menaces world peace. A nation which refuses to accord to its own people the full enjoyment of innate human rights cannot be relied upon to co-operate in the international community for the maintenance of peace, which is based on the recognition of national freedom. Such a nation

441
will pursue its own selfish international policies, while paying lip-service to international co-operation. We have it within our power to introduce, a new era, the era for which people have been longing through the centuries, the era in which nations will live together in justice and charity."
I could add nothing to those words.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I think that it would be convenient to adjourn now for the luncheon interval, but before we do so my noble friend the Leader of the House, who has had to leave on business, has asked me to make a reference to the business for to-morrow. There are three Motions on the Paper in the names of Lord Morris, on B.O.A.C., and of two noble Lords opposite, besides some minor business, and my noble friend thought that, with the concurrence of your Lordships, it would be convenient to meet at twelve o'clock. I think we might now break off until two o'clock.
House adjourned at two minutes past One o'clock and resumed at two o'clock.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships a very short time only while I deal with one point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Templewood. It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to take part in a debate initiated by my noble friend, an old chief. The point I am referring to is that part of his remarks where he referred to the necessity of a force to ensure peace, having particular regard to the Air Force. He said:
"Are we, I wonder, moving quickly enough in making air defence arrangements, both in the East and the West, that will make it hopeless for any German to contemplate another military aggression? I have a feeling that we may be losing the present atmosphere of common effort … ."
I cannot help thinking that unless we are equipped ourselves, unless we have such a force as can keep the peace in the future, after this war, all the speeches that have been made in this debate and in many others will be quite a waste of breath. Therefore the most important point in order to see that peace is kept is to see that we have that force in the background. It is no good having a force that can be brought into being six months after a war has started. It must be ready before war breaks out.
I would like to say now that the proposals I am making must be carried out in agreement and in combination with our
442
two great Allies, the United States of America and Russia and with a central organization. In that connexion the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, if I understood him correctly, said with regard to the question of a defence organization:
"Personally I think—I am only giving a personal view—it is in such machinery, operating directly under the international organization, rather than in any sectional agreements, that we must find our best hope of enduring freedom from the fear of aggression. I do not say that sectional agreements are themselves a bad thing, but I feel certain that there must also be a central machinery."
I thoroughly subscribe to that and the remarks which I am about to make are put forward in that sense. But there is one point to remember in this connexion that has not been mentioned by any noble Lords who have spoken unless I have missed it, and that is that neutrality is dead. There will be no such thing as neutrality in future wars. I think that is a point which ought to be remembered in these days in order to facilitate the work of the great Powers in maintaining peace.
Each of those great Powers can help by making local arrangements to ensure the immediate provision of the forces available. By that I mean that these islands can come to some arrangement with the Western Powers of Europe which will facilitate such a force being available instantaneously with regard to that most important weapon mentioned by the noble Viscount who introduced this debate—namely, air. Surely we can arrange that the Air Forces of those Western Powers and our own Air Force are organized on similar lines instead of their being all different. In other words, the countries of Europe like Norway, Holland, Belgium and France, must organize their Air Forces on similar lines. In this war we have seen squadrons of the Royal Air Force composed of Dutch, French, Belgian, Norwegian and Dominion airmen working together in this country as if they were one, sometimes under a British Commander, sometimes under a foreign Commander. I am not asking that we should go as far as that in peace-time because I am one of those who think it would be a great mistake to try and have an International Air Force. What I am suggesting is that these Air Forces should be similar to each other, that they should be international in their character and organization. We can surely go as far as that

443
and agree on there being some similarity between the Air Forces of the nations I have referred to without interfering with any sovereign rights.
I am suggesting that the Western Powers of Europe should organize their Air Forces on the lines of our Royal Air Force with which they are now thoroughly conversant. Should not we all try to use the same type of equipment—not the same equipment, but the same type of equipment in the various , types of machines: fighter bomber, intermediate bomber and so on? I do not suggest that all the machines should be identical, but they should, for instance, have the same type of guns. Surely we can do that. What we want in a scheme of that kind for security is that the Forces should know each other.
Again, and most important of all, can we not have more or less the same sort of training, the same sort of organization in radio, wireless and training? The aerodromes, too, should be organized on the same lines. They all know our organization and I suggest that theirs should be on the same lines as our own. Training is most important. Is it too much to ask of all these nations that a certain number of squadrons in each of the countries I have mentioned on our western fringe, should be able to go to certain selected and certified aerodromes of each country, being allowed in the course of their training to come down upon those aerodromes without having to communicate with the Foreign Office and other organizations? I suggest that as a matter of course they should be allowed to land on certain training aerodromes so that all the Forces can get to know each other, learn one another's ways and keep to them. They should train together. Surely we can do that. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility? It would help to maintain the friendship we have had in war if they go backwards and forwards to selected aerodromes. I feel that it would help if this question could be discussed between Governments now when the atmosphere, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said, is suitable. Do not let us lose the atmosphere. Would it not be a unifying force in the treatment of this matter in Western Europe? Might not Russia also in the East do something in unifying methods? The United States of America, that other great English-speaking race,
444
already works on similar lines with us and so they would be ready to join in without delay. I repeat that this would not interfere with sovereignty or political questions but it would enable us to keep in touch with each other and therefore prevent another war.
2.11 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I will not attempt to follow the noble Viscount who has just spoken, because in his sphere I am ignorant and he is omniscient. With regard to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, I feel that he has raised a subject of such magnitude and complexity that it is really impossible to follow him over the whole. I should, however, like to say how emphatically I agree with what he said about the importance of nomenclature. We talk about Democracy and others talk about Fascism, but in other countries these words have very different meanings. In particular the word democracy with us means an orderly form of Parliamentary government which is quite compatible with monarchy, but in other countries—I should think perhaps in Spain, certainly in Italy—it has a connotation of Jacobin Revolution. Therefore it is most necessary that in these matters our position should be better defined than it has been. Again, not in your Lordships' House but outside it, those apparently are thought the best democrats who are furthest to the Left. Logically that means that the advocates of the dictatorship of the proletariat would appear to be the best democrats, which is absurd, as our old friend Euclides used to say.
With regard to the main question, some of the difficulties of sanctions have already been stated. You can have, as far as I can see, on the organization my noble friend suggests only moral sanctions. It may be that they will be useful but they cannot be substitutes for the physical sanctions which may emerge under the Dumbarton Oaks plan whatever form they may take; certainly not for what has just been advocated by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. For all that, I wish well to the noble Viscount. I am not at all sure that even without those sanctions what he suggests setting up as a standard may not do great good. I am not certain that they might not possibly be combined with some kind of economic advantage to those who remain in the organization and with some economic dis-

445
advantage to those who are forced to leave. Be that as it may, I trust my noble friend will go on with his plan, and I say this with more cordiality because I spent the best part of two years in opposing him with every device of procrastination. I am firmly convinced that in that controversy I was completely in the right and he was completely in the wrong, but on this matter I wish him heartily God-speed.
I should like to say just a word about what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said. I do not think it was open to a wrong interpretation, but I do think it was a little unfortunate. Referring to the matter of Greece he said we were fighting our Allies. I am sure that is not true. What we are doing is to try to help an Allied Government to suppress a wholly unjustified and treacherous conspiracy, and I do not think the noble Viscount would really deny that. I am sorry he is not here at this moment. I think the actual expression he used was unfortunate.
Inevitably this Motion leads one to the question, how does Germany come in? When may it be possible to apply some of the benefits as well as the disadvantages of this setting up of a standard to be accepted in all countries? One's mind goes back to a recent debate the protagonists in which are not here to-day, On the one hand the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and on the other the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester who was supported to some degree yesterday by the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang. I think the differences are not really so great as might be thought. I think everyone agrees on security, the absolute necessity of security whatever the conditions may be. I think everyone agrees on the punishment of war criminals. That I think is common ground and has been supported by all manner of ecclesiastical pronouncements up to and including his Holiness the Pope, but there are different conceptions of what may come about in the future according to the various views of German mentality.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester was optimistic that a change of heart would come. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, was pessimistic. According to him, as I read his words, he thought that any kind of co-operation or assistance, of a change of heart or of the education of the Germans, was impossible, if
446
not perhaps in perpetuity yet, in legal words which I seem to remember, "during the longest life of any now living descendant of Queen Victoria," which was used by lawyers to avoid the Statute of Perpetuity. What is the right mean I will not pretend to say. Whatever it may be, we must not relax, I think most people here will agree, in the slightest degree our necessary measures of security because of any hope of a change of heart in Germany. There are persons, I will not say a school but a large number of persons, who go far beyond the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and seem to think the necessity of the case is to make all Germans personally suffer. I have not seen that in the report of any speech here or in another place but it is the common theme of some who write letters to newspapers. I am not going to discuss the ethics of that: noble Lords can form their own judgment as well as I can. I have never taken a degree in moral theology but I would look at it for the moment as simply a question of shortening the war, and, on that ground, I do say that such a notion is unnecessary, impracticable and dangerous.
It is unnecessary because the plans for security will certainly be unpleasant enough for all who are pervious to argument at all to realize that aggressive war does not pay. It is impracticable because it would require us to organize a new Gestapo, and that we are, happily, quite incapable of doing. Yet that is what it would mean. And, when you come to think about it, you can hardly say that really you wish every German, individually and personally to suffer. I will not quote the case of Cardinal Faulhauber; I might be thought to have a natural bias in that matter. But reference has been made already to Pastor Niemoller, and I am sure no one really wishes him to suffer personally more than he has already done. Then, if you come nearer to it, take some Hausfrau in the middle of the Black Forest. What is really her moral and corporate responsibility for the crimes of her Government? The idea simply would not work. What I think would happen is that our men will no sooner find themselves in billets in Germany than they will be found carrying slop pails about for German housewives. That is what they did before, and if there is danger in that that will be the danger in the future.

447
Lastly, and this I submit is a most important matter, this notion if not corrected by some official pronouncement will encourage resistance. I will now go back if your Lordships will pardon me a moment to a debate in which I ventured to raise this matter on June 3, 1943. I said this with reference to Goebbels:
"He twisted with some skill our declaration about unconditional surrender. We, of course, meant the unconditional surrender of the forces controlled by the Axis, but he endeavoured to persuade his country that it meant the total annihilation of Germany and the reduction of the German people to the same system of helotry to which they have reduced others. If he can put it to them that unconditional surrender means this, and means surrender to foreign Communism, there will be a very much harder struggle that we shall have to face. It needs no imagination to see how resistance will be strengthened and the war prolonged if he is successful in this effort."
That was eighteen months ago, and all that my noble friend the Leader of the House could say as to that was that, while we adhered generally to the principles of the Atlantic Charter, no further pronouncement could be made without seeing what view our Allies would take about it, and before drawing up something in common with them.
I cannot help thinking that—to use an expression of the Prime Minister—it is high time that such a declaration should be made. I blame no one, but I feel most strongly that unless such a declaration is made enemy propaganda will have a far easier time than it need have. Of course it will be said nothing you can do will convince them. Well I am not so sure. Truth has a way of percolating, it may be very slowly, and I very much doubt whether even Goebbels could persuade all the people, even the credulous German people, all the time. Now this is pertinent to matters to which Viscount Templewood's Motion refers. We might surely be able to say that after perhaps a necessary purgatorial period the enemy might be assured of such things as personal freedom, open courts, and the reign of law. I just throw this out and I will not go further now. I know some of the difficulties, and I know, too, that I may not be conscious of all of them. But I do suggest that so long as no such proclamation is made our propaganda and our efforts will be at a disadvantage.
448
I return now for one moment to the question of security. I confess that I do not believe that it will be possible or advisable to carve up enemy territory into separate sovereign States, and though it may be a political necessity, I do not myself like absolute alienation of territory. It may be the lesser of two evils, but if it has to be done, whether in the West or in the East, and a population has to be moved, I hope that it will be done by some disinterested party and not by any party that is to profit by it. I think that something might be done in the nature of a federation, a federation with the largest powers possible to the separate States and the least power practicable to the Central Government. If you had, say, one State of Hanover, another of Westphalia, another of the Rhineland with Hesse Darmstadt—unless the western part of the Rhineland is to be cut off—another, of course, with the existing States of Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria, another Thuringia and of course the Hanse towns, and another possibly of Lower Silesia, although that might go to Saxony. I think that, first of all, the dominating Prussian element would be very much weakened. I do think and hope, also, that a regional patriotism might develop which would not be influenced by Prussian traditions and philosophy. I think also that the federal capital might be transferred to Leipzig, where the Supreme Court has long been.
I notice that of late there has been a feeling of disappointment over the progress of the war. I think it is wholly unjustified, but many people have apparently come to think that because of the miracle of the invasion and the liberation of France such miracles might be normal. One can but remember the last stages of the last war when the enemy were not only checking us but were gaining successes within four months of the end. And at the end of the Napoleonic Wars—I mean the Long War not the Hundred Days—Napoleon was winning successes, certainly within a month, and I think within a fortnight, of his capitulation. It is from that point of view that I want to argue. Our indignation at the crimes of the enemy is both natural and justified, but I feel that we must concentrate on everything consistent with honour and our essential aims to shorten the conflict and save the lives of our men.

449
It is in that spirit that I have ventured to address your Lordships.
2.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, after hearing the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, give examples of the part played by Nazi agents in Spain, I should like to give one further example, not from Spain, a country with enemy armies ' standing on its doorstep, but from England, from London, and in peacetime. This took place in 1938 in the German Embassy, and it happened to a couple of friends of mine. I can quote, if the House wishes me to do so, names and dates and other information on the subject. At the time when my story opens this couple were not married. He was a Labour candidate for Parliament, and she was an Austrian baroness serving as a secretary in the then Austrian Embassy. At the time of the Anschluss, when Austria was seized, the Germans gave her the alternative either of going back to Germany, to the hell which it had then become, or else of staying on as a secretary in the German Embassy. Rather than leave this country and her future husband, she decided to stay. Shortly after becoming a secretary in the German Embassy, she announced her engagement. This at once created a storm. She was brought in front of the Ambassador and was threatened that unless she broke off her engagement at once she would be either then and there murdered or else be drugged and her body smuggled out of the country in the diplomatic baggage.
There was nothing that she could do about it; she was in their hands. Probably there was only one thing that saved her—her fiancé. They made an arrangement by which he visited her frequently at all hours of the day and night, just to see that she was there and well, in order that if she should fail to put in an appearance steps might be taken to complain and if possible interrupt the diplomatic baggage. I think that this is one of the most amazing cases of which I have heard, that such a thing should happen in a civilized country in peacetime. The worst part of it was that they could not complain to the police; however murderous the inhabitants of the German Embassy were, they were technically not in England. In fact these murderers were not only tolerated but
450
protected by the police. I hope that I have not wearied your Lordships with this little story. I only tell it in order to show what can go on under the umbrella of law and order, and to support the noble Viscount who has moved this Resolution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, as this debate has spread over two days, my noble friend the Leader of the House asked me to take part in it at the end, though I must say that for myself I think that the speech made at the close of the debate yesterday by the Leader of the House was a very complete, well-balanced and wise summing up of the matter, with which I should be well content. I am glad to intervene, however, because it gives me the opportunity of tendering to my old friend and colleague, Lord Templewood, my sincere congratulations on the most important entry which he has made into this House, in introducing a debate which I think will go on and not merely terminate to-day. My noble friend and I, in the days when we were in the House of Commons together, often had occasion to observe that when a speech was made by a member who was able to address the House from absolutely first-hand knowledge, and inform it of that which he had seen with his own eyes and heard with his own ears, there was at once a universal recognition that his contribution was of a specially valuable character. Parliament always likes to listen to the man who knows. I was struck by the way in which my noble friend so quickly seized the attention, and indeed the strained attention, of this House by his most striking recital of some of his experiences when he served this country in so valuable a way in Spain.
I should like, without occupying your attention too long, to bring back the discussion more precisely to the actual question which my noble friend raised, and to the proposals which he boldly outlined. He has deeply impressed us all by his account of what he called the moral devastation, the lowering of civic standards, which has resulted on the Continent of Europe from Nazi domination and from this horrible oppression by the Gestapo. It was very striking to find, as one followed the illustrations he gave and the arguments he used, that even outside the boundaries of the countries which are or

451
have been actually occupied by Nazi Germany, this state of things is to be found and is likely to continue. One of the virtues of liberty in the State is that it introduces healthy draughts of fresh air and keeps thought and action sane and sweet. Undoubtedly we are in the presence of a situation where, because of this oppressive, tyrannous hand which has been laid upon men and women so cruelly, even when they are delivered from it they are no longer capable of themselves maintaining the same standards that might have appealed to them before.
My noble friend insisted on the necessity of re-establishing these moral standards and of recognizing these common human rights, in the place of tyranny and oppression, and I am sure that so far the whole House will agree with him. We agree with him also as to the prerequisite to reform on which he insisted—namely, the complete overthrow of the system which has brought these evils upon the world, and real security that such a system shall never have an opportunity of raising its head again. So far I think we are all in agreement. I venture, in a sentence, to refer to the speech made just now by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. I wholly agree, and I am confident that the entire Government wholly agree, with him that we are not seeking the punishment of every German. What we are determined to secure is the overthrow of the Nazi system, security that it shall not revive, and, as far as ever we can, the punishment of war criminals who are proved to be guilty of the hideous wickedness and barbarity which has been perpetrated in this war. If I have in the least degree relieved his anxiety on the point he has mentioned I am very glad indeed to join with him in proclaiming that view.
My noble friend Lord Templewood's speech has, I think, performed a particularly valuable service because it has brought home to us afresh and very clearly that the attainment of final victory in the war will be very far from the end of the troubles and problems of Europe. Release from domination by Germany leaves unsolved the tremendous problem of European recovery and, as he pointed out, that recovery is not merely a question of food, trade, or employment, but it must include, before it can be declared to have been attained, the re-erection of decent civic
452
standards and the re-establishment and effective development of individual rights throughout Europe. Then my noble friend took a course which is always to be admired, though it has its risks, in descending from the general to the particular, and very usefully, as I thought, he developed his scheme by putting forward certain concrete proposals. He made it quite plain that he was not committed to them in precision, but you can best test these proposals if you adopt the valuable method of putting forward concrete suggestions and asking for criticism; and that is what he has done. Being myself strongly moved in agreement with his general thesis, I have the less hesitation in mentioning two or three possible criticisms, and I know very well that that is what he himself would desire as the result of this debate.
There have been several important speeches made in the debate in which it has been indicated that the speaker warmly approves his diagnosis, applauds his search for a remedy, but expresses some doubt as to the suggested cure. I extract from his speech a single sentence, so that I may remind your Lordships before we bring this debate to a conclusion as to what it is he suggests. He wants
"a guarantee of certain liberties for every European that would enable him or her to develop his or her personality in accordance with the very principles of European civilization,"
and he gave us instances—equality before the law, the establishment of a unified system of justice, the abolition of arbitrary arrest, freedom of speech and opinion, freedom of the Press—matters which he called the "basic liberties"; and his proposal was that those basic liberties should be "guaranteed." I will return to that in a moment. My noble friend went on to say that he does not want a mere paper assurance, and he would therefore like to see a United Nations body formed at any rate to watch over the fulfilment of those guarantees and to help to sustain these standards.
May I be allowed just to mention two or three undoubted matters of difficulty in this method of proceeding, warmly as I approve of it on the whole. The first point to which I would briefly draw the attention of the House is this, that of course such declarations as those, declarations of fundamental liberties, have been common form in the Continental Constitutions for a long time. I should not be

453
at all surprised to find that the written Constitution of Spain at this moment contains the lot. It has been the Continental method, when adopting a written Constitution, to write down that the right of individual liberty, the right of free speech, the freedom of the Press, and so forth, are "guaranteed"; and the misfortune is that in the past that has not proved to be a very effectual security, because those in authority, when they found things were going badly, had the unfortunate habit of suspending the constitutional guarantees, and when you had suspended them, there you were! I venture to remind my noble friend of an experience he has probably not forgotten when he was engaged in the framing of a Constitution for India. I remember very well that at the Round-Table Conference proposals were put forward by some very distinguished people, Indian and British, that there should be included in the Constitution and put into the Government of India Act a declaration that, for instance, personal liberty was guaranteed and that other large matters of that sort should be assured by Act of Parliament. But this proposal was not included in the Bill. The difficulty hitherto has been not to make such declarations but to enforce them effectively when the time came. And that has to be looked at, I think, very firmly and fairly, as he would wish, before one could be sure that this particular solution is the best.
There is a second point which was mentioned, I think, by my noble friend Lord Samuel. Really and truly these declarations, which are so full blooded and absolute, cannot apply without modification. The right of public meeting must exist side-by-side with the right to disperse a seditious assembly. The right of printing cannot be used to cover the publication of treasonable pamphlets or manifestos directly urging crime. The inviolability of the home—and I was very much interested to learn from Lord Templewood that in the new Constitution of Russia domiciliary visits were expressly prohibited—the inviolability of the home in this country has got to live with the right of the policeman to come into your house if he is backed by a magistrate's warrant and is in search of stolen goods. And the right of personal liberty, the greatest of all these generalizations, after all is consistent with the existence of
454
prisons and mental homes and various circumstances in which individuals may be lawfully detained. I must say that I think there is a great deal of force in my noble friend Lord Samuel's query—how is an international body really to test the cases where these broad propositions are set at naught by the Government rightly, and the cases where they are grossly defied?
There is a third point which at least to an Englishman is of great importance in this connexion. How do we do it? I am not for an instant suggesting that we ought to go about the Continent of Europe and teach them our particular methods and require them to adopt them. That would be perfectly hopeless and quite wrong. We must recognize the equal right of every country to construct its Constitution, subject to certain fundamental objections, as it pleases. But how do we do it? I am not sure that your Lordships have all had your attention called to this point, though it is very familiar to constitutional lawyers. In this country 'we do not rely on any of these declarations at all. There is not, as far as I know, anywhere to be found in our Constitution a declaration of a right of public meeting, or a right of public speaking, or most of these other things. Even the right of combination is only partly secured by Statute; it is mainly by Common Law. How do we do it? We secure what every free citizen wants and ought to have by recognizing that the only thing that really matters is an effective procedure, an effective machine which will vindicate this right in the case of a person who is injured. If you live in a country where any man, however unpopular, however simple, however misguided, has a perfectly equal opportunity of going to the courts and suing for damages the man who imprisons him, you will stop unlawful imprisonment very quickly, and it is by the adoption of these practical measures that we in this country have succeeded.
It is a commonplace in such debates to talk about Magna Charta. That is very important, no doubt, but I doubt whether really the bargain between King John and his Barons is the most effective instrument for this purpose. The most effective instrument for this purpose is habeas corpus, and that is available for all and sundry. We have provided, by Statute, that a Judge must grant the writ

455
even though on vacation. Before now a Judge has been interrupted in the midst of a.most important putt on the golf links in order to issue habeas corpus. And quite right, too! These are matters of machinery, and it is because machinery has been devised in this country for these rights that they really exist. If you will forgive me delaying you on this point, I would like to give you an illustration. You will remember how, as a young man, Voltaire was so unfortunate as to find himself in a lively difference with a noble family in France; and thereupon he was seized and beaten and thrown into the Bastille. He remained there, if I remember rightly, for a couple of years and he ultimately got Out of the Bastille merely because a number of highly placed gentlemen in France used their necessary influence to secure his release. Now when Professor Dicey wrote his book about the Law of the Constitution, and explained how we really secured these results in England—and in Scotland too —he took the instance of Voltaire, and I will presume on the patience of the House to read an extract.
What Professor Dicey said was this:
"Suppose that in 1725 Voltaire, at the instigation of an English lord, had been treated in London as he was treated in Paris. He would not have needed to depend for redress upon the good will of his friends or upon the favour of the Ministry. He could have pursued one of two courses. He could, by taking the proper steps, have caused all his assailants to be brought to trial as criminals. He could, it he preferred it, have brought an action against each and all of them. He could have sued the nobleman who caused him to be thrashed, the footman who thrashed him, the policeman who threw him into gaol and the gaoler or lieutenant who kept him there. Such an action can and has been brought against Governors of Colonies, against Secretaries of State, against officers who have tried by court martial persons not subject to military law, against every kind of official, high or low. No one of Voltaire's enemies would, if he had been injured in England, have been able to escape from responsibility on the plea of acting in an official character or in obedience to his official superiors. Nor would any one of them have been able to say that the degree of his guilt could in any way whatever be determined by any more or less official court. Voltaire, to keep to our example, would have been able in England to have brought each and all of his assailants, including the officials who kept him in prison, before an ordinary court, and therefore before Judges and jurymen who were not at all likely to think that official zeal or the orders of official superiors were either a legal or a moral excuse for breaking the law."
456
It is the existence in this country of these effective, practical remedies of procedure which have secured these important rights, and not any general declaration at all. I remember, some years ago, an illustration which impressed me at the time, though it is quite commonplace. It was the case of an avowed Communist, an extremist of the most advanced type, who had been arrested and brought before the magistrate for some breach of the law—not for being a Communist; that is not a breach of the law; but for something else which I do not remember. When he was arrested the police visited his domicile and took possession of some of the papers and letters in his lodging. He was dealt with by the magistrate—fined, I think—and resumed his place as a citizen. But the police did not give him back his documents as soon as he thought they should have done so, and what did he do? He simply brought an ordinary action in the/court—it was in Glasgow, I think—alleging.that the policeman who had acted perfectly lawfully under a warrant in everything he had done, had none the less done him an injury because he had retained some of his papers and letters longer than he need have done, and the man got damages. Well, you show me another country where that can happen, and then I shall believe these things can be secured by a general declaration.
I would not, on that account, wish at all to challenge my noble friend Lord Templewood's general proposition. I do not think that individual rights will be found to be effectively secured by these general propositions, but that is a very different thing from saying that we may not look forward in future to some organization which might at any rate help internationally to promote the preservation of certain standards of civic right. I doubt myself whether you make a complete account of the matter when you say that you are concerned to preserve individual "rights." That is very important, of course, but there is another side of it which you may call "duty." I think myself that one of the great weaknesses which has developed as a result of the pressure of this 'horrible Gestapo system is that a man is so terribly preoccupied by his own safety or by protecting his wife or child from awful cruelty, that he ceases to have, in many cases, a sufficient consciousness of the duty which attaches to every free citizen—the duty of tolerance,

457
the duty of neighbourliness, the duty of standing up for what you know to be the only decent course for the State or the community to take. Those are the things which really hold up the whole temple of liberty. My noble friend beside me (Viscount Samuel) made a reference in his speech to Mr. Gladstone. Whether that statesman was right or wrong in a particular policy it is not for us to discuss to-day, but there was something very fundamentally English in the denunciation which I recall Mr. Gladstone thundered against King Bomba, when he declared him to be "the negation of God erected into a system of government."
While of course we cannot go about like a lot of Don Quixotes trying to rescue distressed maidens in all parts of the world, I think it is a very fine thing in our English character and our English outlook that our strong attachment to a number of these civic rights is not limited to our desire to enjoy them ourselves but is part and parcel of the duty which rests on us, and which most of us feel, to do our very utmost to secure them for others. I think it is that reflection, perhaps not expressly stated in Lord Templewood's speech, which makes the strongest appeal to us. He says, is it not possible to devise some international organization or association which would invite the signatures of European States to a recognition, at any rate, of a standard of minimum civic rights and duties, and having done so, is it not possible that such an international organization should watch over the fulfilment of those assurances and, where it could, should be bold enough at least to report to the world even though it could not itself intervene: I doubt the possibility of intervention. In the modern world war inflicts such horrible hardships upon people that it takes a very strong cause before a people which is disinterested will go into a war for the sake of other people's rights. But a great deal of good can be done short of that.
There is an example to be found in an international agreement at Geneva in which I have always taken the greatest interest—the Slavery Convention. The Slavery Convention was drawn up at the instigation of a British subject at Geneva some time ago; it gradually secured the signatures and approval of every State, or practically every State, in the world. One or two of them I am
458
afraid did not necessarily practice what they preached, but at least it was a great thing to have this simple declaration against slavery, and in favour of individual freedom from slavery, made a document of world-wide significance. We owe a great deal to my noble friend Viscount Cecil and others for being present at Geneva and supporting it on every occasion. I am sure that the result of that Convention was enormously to strengthen both the interest and the conscience of the world in respect of this abominable system of enslaving human flesh and blood.
Therefore, for my part, I do not by any means reject the main proposition which my noble friend is advancing. As I have said, I think it will come up again, in what form I do not know, but it does seem to me that in the world we hope to see much would be gained if those elementary rights were declared solemnly by the peace-loving nations of the world to be the essential condition for future civilization. White it may be, as far as we see at present, that we could not expect to see Armies tramping or Air Forces assembling because of some reported departure from it, still I think such a document, with such a declaration, might well prove a most valuable first step towards a better condition of things. I therefore take the opportunity of congratulating my noble friend most sincerely on having raised this important Subject in the House. He has had a first experience of how, when you raise one subject here, the debate is likely to embrace quite a number of other things as well. That is our practice but in the end we come back to the specific subject raised. And for raising it we thank him very much.
3.5 P.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I should be very ungrateful if, having made your Lordships listen to an unduly long speech yesterday, I took more than a few minutes of your time to-day. None the less I think your Lordships would feel that I was very discourteous if I did not make one or two short observations on the debate that has taken place. First of all, for instance, I should indeed be discourteous if I did not thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the very kind way in which they have alluded to myself. I am particularly

459
grateful to those other noble Lords who have made kind references to myself in the debate yesterday and to-day, and especially grateful to my old friend Lord Trenchard for having reminded me this afternoon of our long work together at the Air Ministry.
I am very conscious of the fact that my Resolution raises a very awkward dilemma. A guarantee of the rights to which I alluded might, on the one hand, be one of those many paper guarantees that in the past have meant very little, or it might, on the other hand, be a lever used by unscrupulous people for starting subversive movements in other countries and interfering in other people's affairs. I am very conscious of both those possibilities. None the less, coming so freshly back from facing problems of this kind actually on the spot, I still believe that it is necessary to do something more than was suggested in one or two of the speeches during this debate—namely, of leaving these questions simply upon a moral basis to be dealt with by religious leaders and by moral influences in the various countries. I believe myself, without dogmatizing as to the exact methods, it would be found that something more than that is needed, that something is needed to keep these questions constantly before the public mind of Europe.
I contemplate that when the war ends with a decisive Allied victory, the United Nations will find themselves in a position of unprecedented strength in the world. I think it will be very difficult for countries to remain outside the interests of the United Nations and outside the standards that the United Nations will wish to set up in the world. I believe that if it is made clear that co-operation with the United Nations is conditional upon a certain standard of moral conduct, it will be very difficult for delinquent countries not to alter their method of behaviour and not to conform with the general line that I ventured to suggest to your Lordships yesterday. On that account, without as I say dogmatizing about methods, without disagreeing with many of the suggestions and some of the criticism made in the course of the debate, I believe that there is a great opportunity for the United Nations to raise the moral standard of European countries generally. It that be so, I think they will find it useful to have
460
some organization on lines that I yesterday suggested, under the orbit or in direct control of the agreement that I hope will be ratified as a result of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference for the purpose of keeping those countries that have hitherto been delinquent countries up to the mark.
I do not wish to take up more time this afternoon. I would rather thank your Lordships most sincerely for the patience with which you have listened to me. So far as I myself am concerned the debate has been of the greatest value to me. It has emphasized difficulties—I realize them very fully—but it has shown further that there is an enormous body of support behind my main contention—namely, that the central problem of Europe for the future is once again to recreate the standards of moral conduct. Having made these observations I think it would be probably your wish, now that we have had this very free and useful debate, that I should ask leave to withdraw my Resolution.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ALTRINCHAM GAS ORDER, 1944.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTA AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LABOUR COSTS AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Ortler, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemon).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOLD COAST LEGISLATURE
3.12 p.m.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL rose to call attention to statements in the Press regarding substantial changes proposed in the Gold Coast Legislature; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a word of explanation is perhaps necessary why the Motion which stands in my name has been left on the Order Paper in spite of the debate which took place quite recently on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. The reason is that that debate covered a point more of constitutional procedure than I had in mind. It is with a view to eliciting certain information from the noble Duke that I left my Motion on the Order Paper. On October 5 the Colonial Secretary, in reply to a question in another place, stated that recommendations for constitutional reform in the Gold Coast had been submitted by the Governor and had received his approval in principle. The statement went on to say that it was proposed to grant an unofficial majority on the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast and to include on the Council representatives of Ashanti as well as of the Colony with the corresponding extension of legislative authority.
That announcement, the first of its sort in a West African Colony, involved a very substantial advance in the practice of Crown Colony administration, and as such it seemed to me at the time and since to be slightly regrettable that it passed unnoticed. That is probably due to the form adopted in making the announcement. I do not wish to suggest that the form of announcement was in any way peculiar or was not correct. I have no doubt it was correct, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, pointed that out in the course of the debate on Viscount Elibank's Motion. My regret is that if the announcement had to be made in that form it was not followed by some further publicity or a debate on the subject in another place. Shortly after that another announcement was made by the Colonial Secretary on similar developments in Northern Rhodesia, where an unofficial majority was also approved to be made when the necessary
462
legislation could be enacted. That also received, except locally, very little publicity and did riot form the subject of any debate or discussion either prior to or after the event. It would appear to me, without having heard any of the grounds which led the Colonial Secretary into these two announcements, to be fair to conclude that he had some very good grounds and that it was an appropriate and proper development of our Colonial policy. It is difficult, however, to come to that conclusion without further information, which I hope the noble Duke will be able to furnish to your Lordships' House.
It is noteworthy that in both these cases —it is perhaps all the more remarkable in the case of the Gold Coast—it was found possible to approve the recommendation in principle without any public investigation in the form of a Commission or the seeking of advice from persons sent out for the purpose. That is in contrast to the procedure which has been adopted in many other cases, notably in East Africa, and more lately in regard to proposals for constitutional changes in Ceylon. It would follow from the procedure adopted in this case, I think, that all the information which was relevant to this proposal was already in the hands of the Colonial Office and that they found that the proposals which the Governor had to make were reasonable and logical and did not give rise to any difference of opinion. If that is so, it is a very happy augury for what has happened in the Gold Coast and possibly a most important development. That also is a point which the noble Duke may refer to in his reply.
One further point strikes me very forcibly. It is that, in contrast to what has happened frequently in East Africa, such opposition and antagonism as have been roused by the studies and developments of the Commission sent out have not been of a character to delay the coming into force of the changes. I think we have found in the course of the experience of twenty or thirty years that special Commissions and the publicity connected with them have led rather to delays than to improvement in the situation they found. It may not be always possible to follow this procedure in every case, but in East Africa, where there are some who think constitutional changes of the same sort are right and probably overdue, similar procedure might be followed.
If one were cynical on the subject of changes of this sort—which I am not because, as I wish to say, I am far from critical of this, indeed I think it is quite right—one might be reminded of the observation of a player at a bridge table to his rather slow-playing partner, "For goodness' sake make your mistakes quickly." I feel that in this case no mistake has been made but we are all rather in the dark about the reasons why this decision was taken. The decision is a very important one; it scarcely needs emphasizing. Not only is an unofficial majority in future to reign in the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast, but, also, the veto of the Governor has been withdrawn, and replaced with an ultimate veto of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. That this should have been enacted, or proposed, in a West African Colony is a very remarkable development, and is, I think, unlike anything that has been tried in an African Colony before. Some, no doubt, will suggest that the development is premature and, if they feel that, no doubt would have said so before now had the proposals received more publicity. But I am not one of those who think that this is premature. I feel sure that we shall all realize, after hearing what I hope the noble Duke will have to say, that it is both timely and wise.
At the same time I would urge that, in all similar cases, rather more publicity and opportunity for discussion should be provided at the time, lest we be accused, as we have been in so many quarters—among others in America—of pursuing reactionary policies with regard to our Colonies, and not paying sufficient attention to their development, either constitutional or economic. Here is a case where we have taken a very liberal and forward step. It is indeed right that everybody should know what we have done and should hear what our programme is in other cases which may be affected. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in a very few words, I desire to support the Motion which has been submitted by my noble friend Lord Rennell. In so doing, I am not saying that there has been any action that is unusual or wrong on the part of the Government because this is the manner
464
in which; all along, Constitutions have been agreed to by Governments, and Parliament has never had an opportunity to consider them until the whole matter has been completed. I think you will see that, for many reasons, there is a mistake in that from the broadest possible angle so far as good fellowship and co-operation between the Central Government and Colonies are concerned. One of the things which used to be commented upon in the other House a good deal was lack of interest in debates dealing with our Colonial Empire. To a large extent the Government are to blame for that. Here is a matter of very great importance. It is a matter about which there is no criticism. What has been done redounds very greatly to the credit of the Colonial Office and of the Government. But it has been done in secret so that the full credit and the necessary kudos do not accrue.
Again and again one has called attention to this sort of thing in another place. It is not always so much the case that the Government do the wrong thing, but that they do the right thing in the wrong way. Because of that we are frequently unable to get the full credit for what we have done, and a good deal of misunderstanding arises both in this country and the Dominions and Colonies with regard to the matter under consideration. Thus a good deal of misunderstanding, even a good deal of feeling, occurs that need not have been engendered. I recall that, in the debate which preceded this one, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, deplored the fact that the situation which had arisen in Greece must be due to the fact that somehow or other we had failed to get the right contacts with the people concerned in that country. I think that probably the same is true with regard to many things that we have done in relation to foreign affairs and our Colonies.
On the question of the Constitution, I have but a word to say. While I congratulate the noble Duke on it—for it is a real step forward—I think that it might have gone a little further and given opportunities for training in responsibility that are lacking to a considerable extent. The result of that lack of training in responsibility now is to drive certain elements into opposition for the sake of opposition. Instead of having numbers of the people concerned trained and educated to carry the responsibility of government in the Colonies, you find that

465
because of the lack of that training, they try to find an outlet for their energies, say, by joining in the opposition. That, I think, is one of the things which we have suffered from in the past. I am glad that the noble Lord's Motion has given us the opportunity to bring these matters forward, and I hope that the noble Duke who is in charge of this matter for the Government will at least give further consideration to the need that has been expressed. It is not that one wants to interfere with the rights of the Government or even with the rights of the Colonial Office. It is simply that one desires to bring such matters to the attention of Parliament for the double purpose of training Parliament itself in its responsibility to the Empire and of helping us all to take a fuller interest in these matters than has been taken hitherto.
3.28 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, if I join in this debate it is partly because I desire to do something to remove an impression that seems to have arisen that when Colonial issues are being debated in Parliament insufficient interest is taken in them. Lord Rennell framed his Motion largely in connexion with the procedure adopted in the step recently taken by the Colonial Secretary. I shall not, myself, deal further with that question of procedure. I am sure there must be many who feel, as I do, that an important step of this kind should receive its due dramatic importance, both for the sake of the Colonies and for the sake of our reputation in the outside world. But there are some important underlying questions which go beyond the question of procedure. There is for instance the whole question of whether any Colony should receive the concession of the unofficial majority in its Legislature, and the time at which it should receive it. That is a problem of great importance.
Indeed I may say with some justice that probably hardly any issue in the discussions of political development in the Colonies is more debatable that this. It is quite clear that until you have a system in which you can get adequate representation of all interests, and develop a Party system which enables the Executive Government to base itself firmly on the, votes of the majority Party, until you arrive at that stage, a Government must have some way of securing necessary and essential
466
legislation. That is not only required, of course, to maintain its executive position and to secure finance and the like, but essential in order that it may prevent legislation in sectional interests. Those sectional interests may arise, for instance, in East Africa by the fact that it is only a European settled community which has representation. They may arise in West Africa by the fact that such representation as is given in the Legislature is confined to interests represented by the Chiefs and to a certain advanced section of the urban population. Again they may arise, as in the West Indies, because political power is largely in the hands of one or other of the colour strata into which most of those islands are divided.
I remember that in the 'sixties the then Colonial Secretary, when a question arose with regard to the attitude of the Imperial Government towards certain of the older settled Colonies in the West Indies, said he would rather that the Imperial Government ceased to have any connexion with them—I think that the words that he actually used were somewhat impolite; he said he preferred to give them independence and let them go to the devil in their own way—than that the Imperial Government should undertake any responsibility for those islands unless it had the power to secure the necessary legislation. Hitherto we have secured this by two devices, the first being the official majority and the second the reservation of powers in the hands of the Governor. The benefit of the, official majority, of course, is that you can secure legislation in the exact form in which you desire it; you must be responsive to the minority—that goes without saying—but you can by this means secure a balanced decision and prevent any invasion of the interests of the large portion of the population which is not duly represented. The advantage of the second system—that of the unofficial majority with reserve powers in the hands of the Governor—is that it is a substantial advance on the path to self-government. Your Lordships will perhaps recollect that the Joint Select Committee of Parliament which was concerned with East Africa said that the grant of a nonofficial majority almost amounted to responsible government. That was overstating the case, but it is certainly a step forward in the grant of self-government.

467
Both these systems, however, have their difficulties. The difficulty of the official majority is that you may provoke your minority into being a standing opposition, with all the irresponsibility in debate which naturally follows. The difficulty of the system of reserve powers is actually in its exercise. You incur charges that the concession towards self-government is only a pretence. You have all the irritation which results when these powers are exercised, and you may have, at the same time, the administrative disadvantage of hesitation to exercise them when their exercise is really required. If I may venture a conclusion on this somewhat abstract discussion, it is that the choice between these two methods must depend very much on the stage of political development at which a Colony has arrived. If you can be sure that you have a state of things where there is a fairly adequate representation, and when you need exercise these powers only on very exceptional occasions, by all means have an unofficial majority; but otherwise it is probably wiser to retain the system which prevails in so many Colonies, of an official majority. Hitherto, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the system in Africa has been one of official majorities, and this is the first breach in that system. You do not escape difficulty either way. Difficulty must inevitably arise in the difficult process of transition from an official to a popular form of government, a process which is as fraught with difficulties to the administrator as it is frequently irritating to the Colonial people concerned.
I said that there were some other fundamental questions which arose as a result of this movement. I would remind your Lordships that the Gold Coast really consists of three parts. I shall not go into a long geographical excursion, but I would point out that the Northern Territories are still in a somewhat undeveloped state and still only a Protectorate, and are divided from the rest of the territory by lack of good means of communication. There is largely a subsistence economy, and their social and political circumstances are similar to those of some of the more primitive parts of Africa. Then you have Ashanti, which, owing to a long war tradition, has a certain identity of its own. It is homogeneous in composition. From the political point of view its own attention has been largely centred on the con-
468
federation which formerly ruled it, and whose credit has been revived by us. It has hitherto seemed to have very little interest in political association with the Gold Coast Colony itself. It has never hitherto sought representation in the Legislature; the Governor has legislated for Ashanti on his own authority.
Finally, we have the Gold Coast, which is by no means homogeneous in its composition. It is in the hands of a very large number of different native authorities, and consists of at least two strongly divided linguistic groups. It has on the other hand this difference from the rest of the territory, that it has a far more advanced economic status, owing to the rapid growth of the cocoa trade, and as a consequence it has a growing moneyed middle-class, a middle-class which is not only concerned in commerce but also largely occupied in legal and journalistic occupations, with the result that it has a considerably more advanced political development than is to be found in many parts of Africa. As a result of some of the historical circumstances under which our jurisdiction has extended in the Gold Coast, the nature of that jurisdiction has varied a good deal from that in many other parts of Africa. Again I shall not attempt a long excursion, but the fact is that whereas elsewhere in Africa we assumed an extent of control which is fairly complete in itself, control which seemed to be derived in some circumstances from the tradition of conquest or from the making of agreements which gave us complete authority, that has not been the position hitherto in the Gold Coast.
We have treated the native authorities there on a different basis. There has grown up a tradition, indeed, that they possess some inherent powers of their own, so much so that we exercised no control over the manner in which they used the moneys which they raised within their own communities, and we exercised little control over their use of powers of justice. Again, it was held at one time—and they themselves have always made the claim—that they held those inherent powers independent of the Crown. Now that position has been altered to some extent in recent years owing to the growing pressure on the Administration of the Gold Coast to adopt systems like the system of indirect rule which have been prevalent in other parts of Africa. But

469
the result nevertheless has been that, though the Gold Coast made great progress in many of its headquarters institutions, educational, medical and the like, yet far less has undoubtedly been done throughout the length and breadth of the country in the way of essential social services than you would find in some of the neighbouring and more distant Colonial territories. There has been a very unequal distribution of all the benefits which might have accrued to the Colony from the large resources it has obtained from the cocoa trade. Now many observers have noted this, and it is not unnatural that they should have thought that the primary requirement in the Gold Coast was an administrative reform which would mean a more equal distribution of these services to which I have referred and far greater attention to the needs of the administration of justice.
They recognized, of course, the strength of the growth of political interest in the Gold Coast itself, and they were very far indeed from desiring to deny that interest full opportunity of expressing itself, or indeed of taking a part in the management and government of the affairs of the Colony. But they saw these two difficulties. They saw that the territory as a whole did not consist of a single unit, as I have explained, and that many parts of it had an interest rather in maintaining their own identity than in joining in any common government; and they saw also that there was a difficulty in the basic social constitution of the territory. In consequence their thoughts took the form that what was immediately required, apart from the administrative reforms to which I have referred, was, on the political side, a building up of institutions from below instead of from above on a basis that would give a wider training in political responsibilities, and eventually give a more unified form to the government of the Colony. They would therefore have had separate Councils in the three different territories, united in a small Council dealing with the common interests; they would have reorganized the native authority system so as to make it a better medium for representative purposes, instead of representing, as it does at the moment, certain sectional interests; and they would have fostered local self-governing institutions in urban areas and the like.
470
Well, there you have the dilemma—the choice between two systems of advance. It does not represent two opposite philosophies, for both, I think, are united in a very genuine desire to secure the political evolution of the territory. It is a difference of method rather than of principle. We have passed beyond that stage when we think it safe to give lip-service to the cause of advance in self-government in Colonies—lip-service because we might have hoped that it was our successors who would have to meet the implications of any such measures. That was a dangerous stage. A dangerous stage it has proved both in India and in the Colonies, and has led to charges of bad faith, much disappointment and sometimes to ill-considered changes in the Constitution in order to prevent disappointments of that nature.
Nevertheless I think we are all agreed that, although self-government we must have, and self-government as rapidly as it is reasonable to attain it, yet it must be a reality. It must not merely satisfy the claims of those who see advance in a rapid approach to the Parliamentary institutions which we follow here, but it must be something more than that. It must be based on the solid ground of social and economic advance, which will give the foundations on which self-government can rest. And it must secure at the same time a form of representation based on the widest possible range of informed and instructed opinion, and opinion which in itself has had the advantage of some training in political responsibilities. Now apart from what I have said about the present step, I do not think the present step is momentous in itself, but it might prove to be so if it should lead to an undue absorption in political advance at the expense of securing reforms in the administrative system and in the attainment of a more solid and dependable basis of representation. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in wishing the happiest augury for the future of this move; yet I feel that it is one which places on the Colonial Office a great responsibility for watching to see that it does not lead to that undue absorption in purely political advance. It lays on the Colonial Office the burden of taking steps, even at the risk of some disappointment to the more ambitious of the political elements in the Colony, to secure that the advance made is not merely in political reforms,

471
but is really an advance which we can say represents orderly and constructive progress throughout the territory.
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, and I should not have dreamed of doing so but for the fact that my noble friend Lord Rennell, in his able and, if I may say so, restrained speech on this Motion, had not referred to Northern Rhodesia. For, as your Lordships know, I was Chairman of a Royal Commission which no less than six years ago went to Northern Rhodesia, in fact to both Rhodesias and Nyasaland, and reported on the problem as to whether there should not be a closer association among those three territories. I may say at once that I rejoice in the fact that, so far as Northern Rhodesia is concerned, there has been a strengthening of the nonofficial element on the Legislative Council of that Protectorate. What I do want to emphasize—and I think my noble friend Lord Rennell referred to it—is the enormous importance, when His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that this important element should be strengthened, of not delaying to carry out their decision as soon as possible. There is an excellent motto which in this connexion I think it is well to act upon: Bis dat qui cito dat—"He gives twice who gives quickly."
As regards Northern Rhodesia, as I am sure the noble Duke will know, there has been for many years past a growing sense of unrest both among the European population and among the native population, largely in consequence of their having no effective voice in the government or the administration of that Protectorate. When my Royal Commission reported to His Majesty's Government, we made it perfectly clear that we felt strongly that there should be some strengthening of that unofficial element. And for this reason: that in its absence there was a growing feeling of irresponsibility on the part both of the European population and of the native population. We felt very strongly that if you want to engender a greater sense of responsibility, if you want indeed to promote the process of evolution towards responsible government, there is no factor that would stimulate that to a greater extent than
472
giving unofficial representation to a much larger extent on both the Legislative and the Executive Councils. We found there was, in fact, a prevalent criticism throughout the whole of that large territory—which, by the way, was very backward indeed in the matter of all social services —that the Protectorate was being tied to the apron-strings of Whitehall to far too great an extent.
I want to emphasize this in conclusion: that I came forcibly to the conclusion myself that if you want to promote a fuller development of social services of every kind in those very primitive communities, it is most essential to make both the native element and the European element conscious that theirs is the initial responsibility. If they do not begin to develop a sense of responsibility, and not a feeling of frustration because they have no voice in the affairs of their country, then they are not advancing as rapidly as they should towards that goal which we all hope will be reached in the case of all the Dependencies and Protectorates of this Empire—namely, the ultimate goal of responsible government.
3.53 P.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I feel very much in the debt of the noble Lord who moved, for affording me this opportunity of giving your Lordships some account of the changes proposed in the Constitution of the Gold Coast. The noble Lord asked why these changes were being made at this particular time, and I think before I detail the changes I might perhaps explain that point. These changes had been very much mooted even before the war. As the noble Lord knows, there are in the Gold Coast many highly-educated Africans who felt—and I think felt reasonably and justifiably—that the time had come when they should make some advance towards self-governing institutions. Then, with the war raging in Africa and West Africa playing a very important part in the war effort, attention tended to be distracted from constitutional changes, and they rather went into the background. The war has now somewhat receded from Africa, and the present Governor felt the time had come when these changes should be made. I do not say that there was agitation, but

473
the feeling which was there before the war was beginning to revive, and the Governor felt strongly that the moment had come when changes which, if not overdue were certainly due, should be made. That is the why and the where-for of the changes at the present time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, mentioned in his speech, the Gold Coast is a complicated Colony. It is by no means homogeneous and its Constitution is very far from a simple one. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who have not made a close study of Gold Coast affairs, I might perhaps begin by explaining the present Constitution, because without having some grasp of that the changes are almost meaningless. The present Constitution provides for a Council consisting of the Governor as President, with an original and casting vote, five ex-officio members of the Executive Council, ten nominated official members, six provincial members chosen by the three Provincial Councils in the Colony, three municipal members, elected by ballot for Accra, Sekondi, and Cape Coast, and five European unofficial members. Your Lordships will observe that under this Constitution there is an official majority.
Recommendations for constitutional reform have, as I say, recently been submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by the Governor, after full consultation with representatives of African political opinion, and those proposals have received my right honourable friend's approval in principle. It is proposed to grant an unofficial majority on the Legislative Council, and to include on the Council representatives of Ashanti as well as of the Colony, with a corresponding extension of its legislative authority. Under the new proposals the Legislative Council will consist of the Governor as President, but without a vote, and of six official members, including the Chief Commissioners of Ashanti and the Northern Territories, nine provincial members for the Colony, which would be divided into two provinces, Eastern and Western, instead of three as at present, and these members, of whom five would be drawn from the Eastern Province and four from the Western, would be elected by the Joint Provincial Council; then four members for Ashanti, who would be elected by the Ashanti Confederacy Council, five municipal members—namely, two
474
for Accra and one each for Cape Coast, Sekondi-Takoradi and Kumasi—who would be elected by ballot, and six nominated members who would be appointed by the Governor. In addition, the Governor would have power to appoint extraordinary members who would not be entitled to vote.
The Governor would be granted reserve powers. I did not follow the noble Lord about that point. He seemed to think there had been some substantial change or some novelty in the Governor's powers, which in fact remain substantially, though not exactly, as they were. There is nothing new in the Governor's powers, which follow the existing practice in such places as Trinidad. The Governor would be granted reserve powers which would permit him to override a decision of the Legislative Council in the interests of public order, public faith or good government. Any such action by the Governor would be subject to revocation by the Secretary of State, except in the case of a Bill, which would be subject to disallowance by His Majesty.
Your Lordships will notice that the result of these proposed changes is that an official majority will be changed into a substantial unofficial majority. Lord Ammon expressed some little regret that we had not gone further and gone as far as giving responsibility. He put his hand there on a very delicate spot because there is the real difficulty in this process of growth that members of Assemblies are perhaps almost inevitably driven into opposition. I can only say in answer to what has been said in the debate that one can go too far at one bound, but I believe this will be an important and valuable step in the process of educating towards fuller responsibility. It is hoped that this new Constitution will come into operation in the course of the next year—1945. But the Northern Territories will not come under the authority of the Legislative Council until their unofficial representation on it is possible, and for the present the Governor will continue to legislate for them.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of these changes, nor do I claim for them that they will achieve anything like a complete democracy or self-government for the Gold Coast, but they do represent a real step forward towards constitutional development and I think

475
they can fairly be described as a rung in the ladder of progress. From the political point of view the significance of according an unofficial African majority is that out of eighteen elected unofficial Africans, thirteen will be elected by the Joint Provincial Council of the Ashanti Confederacy Council and consequently will represent what might perhaps be called the more traditional opinion in Africa. The municipal members are to be elected on lines roughly resembling those obtaining here, while the provincial members will be elected on predominantly African lines. But this does not necessarily mean that the thirteen representatives drawn horn tribal sources and elected in accordance with African methods will be undemocratic or reactionary in their outlook.
I should perhaps explain that the system of election by the Provincial Council —which your Lordships will know consists of the Head Chiefs whose headquarters are situated within the Province—is that each member of a Provincial Council has one vote for every unit of 10,000 inhabitants in his division, but the members of these Councils are by no means so authoritarian as they may sound. These Chiefs are in fact very sensitive to African public opinion within their own States and are liable to be "de-stooled" if they pursue a policy which is sufficiently unpopular among their own people. think it may therefore be expected that their influence in the Legislative Council, while to some extent based on tradition, will nevertheless closely reflect popular opinion in their own States.
Several of your Lordships have said that these proposals are open to criticism both from the Left and from the Right. There may be those who consider that they go farther than is prudent and others who consider that they do not go far enough. I can only say that the Governor who has been at great pains to consult African opinion in the Colony, and my right honourable friend, have given very much time and thought to the proposals. Constitutional matters were discussed when my right honourable friend visited the Colony not long ago and were discussed at great length when the Governor was at home in the early part of this year. It is a complex problem. We are dealing with a Colony which is changing and developing very rapidly, and whose
476
population is far from homogeneous. You have on the one hand a large number of Africans who still live under tribal conditions, and on the other there is a relatively small but influential section of highly-educated Africans whose outlook is tending to become European rather than African. To some these reforms may seem to be inadequate, but we have to consider the Colony as a whole, and I think I may fairly claim for the proposed reforms that they do represent a real and substantial step forward, that they will give the Colony the opportunity of educating itself in the art of self-government, and that they represent not finality but progress towards the ultimate goal.
4.6 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, before the debate is closed there is one point in the noble Duke's reply which is not quite clear to me. I do not know if he is in a position to answer it. He referred to the extraordinary members who might be nominated up to the number, I think, of five or six but who would not have a vote. Could the noble Duke say what the purpose of these representatives would be? Is it intended that they should represent European interests or African interests?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the Governor has a very wide discretion. They may be either Africans or Europeans. The idea of bringing them in is due to the fairly substantial and far-reaching schemes of Colonial development that are under consideration at the present time. The idea is that when technical advice is required in the Assembly it will be desirable that there should be people in the Assembly who are in a position to inform it with regard to the merits of the schemes put before it. They will not have a. vote but they will be in a position to give information and advice on technical matters to the Assembly.
LORD FARINGDON: Is it in the mind of the Government that the Governor should appoint to his Executive Council any of the elected members of the new Legislature? I apologize for being late at the discussion. I was detained. If the noble Duke has not the answer perhaps he can tell me on another occasion.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his reply to my second

477
question. It is, as I suspected, for the purpose of obtaining advice, either European or African, that provision is being made for these non-voting members. I also thank the noble Duke for his very interesting explanation of the reasons for, and possible effect of, the changes that are proposed. I hope that, as approval has been given in principle, not too much delay will be allowed to take place before the proposals are carried into effect lest we be accused of deliberate procrastination and therefore of a lack of good faith. The noble Duke has said he does not think these proposals represent a fundamental change. I think he is underestimating what has been done. I think they represent a very great step and one which has not taken place elsewhere in Africa. With the permission of the House I propose to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EMERGENCY LEGISLATION MEASURE, 1944.
4.9 p.m.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in his name. I think it is hardly necessary to say anything with regard to it. It is quite non-controversial and is of an administrative character. It provides for a period of uncertainty and for adjustment that follows upon the present emergency. If any noble Lord wishes to have any further information with regard to the matter I shall be glad to give it to him. In the meantime I think I shall be meeting your Lordships' desires if I now do no more than simply move the Resolution.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Emergency Legislation Measure, 1944, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Lord Daryngton)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—Sub-Committees.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was reappointed as follows:—The Earl of Lucan, the Earl Fortescue, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the Lord Southwood, with the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Library Sub-Committee was reappointed as follows:—The Marquess of Crewe, the Earl of Ilchester, the Earl of Onslow, the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Macmillan, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the Lord Simonds, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2.—Civil Service War Bonus.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Circular No. 18/44 for payment of war bonus to the staff of the House of Lords to whom it applies.
3.—Civil Defence Rates.
The Committee authorized the application of the new rates of pay for Civil Defence workers to the firemen on fire guard duty in the Palace of Westminster.
4.—Senior Clerk.
The Committee sanctioned a pension under the Superannuation Act, 1859, to Mr. Geoffrey Dundas Luard, Taxing Officer of Private Bill Costs and acting Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Committees. The Committee also sanctioned the payment of salary to Mr. Luard on his appointment from December 28, 1944, as a temporary clerk.
5.—Corps of Custodians.
The Committee considered a petition relating to the pay of the Custodian staff. They considered that it was not practicable during the war to review the basic rates of pay which had been settled by the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Treasury after careful consideration at the time when the Corps was formed. The war bonus, which had been increased from time to time and now amounted to 23s. a week, took account of additional cost-of-living expenses consequent on the war. The Committee were of opinion that the possibility of establishing the Corps on a pensionable basis should be examined after the war in conjunction with a review of the basic rates of pay.
6.—Historical Manuscripts.
The Committee considered proposals made by the Clerk of the Parliaments for the care of the historical manuscripts in his custody.
The Committee recommended, in view of the historical importance of the collection, the appointment of a qualified clerk to be employed whole-time on the care, arrangement and clerical work in connexion with the documents.
7.—Estimates.
The Estimate for the House of Lords Offices for 1945 was laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments and approved.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Stanmore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I do not think there is any point I need stress in the Report. It deals entirely with routine matters. I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Stanmore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE had the following question on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether communication has passed between them and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand regarding the admission of migrants to those Dominions from Great Britain; if so, whether such migration is to be confined in either case to children only; and whether in the early future there is a prospect of admission to either country of adults of good character and trained vocational capacity (if the cost of their transport be provided by them or their friends), without prejudice to the claims of its own nationals now on war service.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name. We seem to be faced with an almost unprecedented happening in this House. I do not wish to put your Lordships to serious inconvenience and for my part, although regretting that I have no oral Ministerial reply, I shall be satisfied in the circumstances with a written reply to be circulated with the proceedings.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I should like to tell the noble Viscount how very deeply we regret the fact that we are not in a position to give him an oral reply to his question at the moment. We very much appreciate his willingness to meet us by accepting a written answer.
(The answer was as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): As the noble Lord will no doubt remember I made a full statement on the question of migration in this House on the 24th May in which I made it clear that the question of migration was under consideration with the Dominion Governments. There is no question in these discussions of such migration being confined to children. As regards the question of unassisted migration, I said on that occasion that there was abundant evidence that Australia and New Zealand would like to take British migrants so far as it was in any way possible. The immediate difficulty is, of course, that of shipping, but I would suggest that any person who is thinking of migrating to the Dominions at his own expense should get into touch with the authorities in London of the Dominion concerned with a view to ascertaining the prospects of his being admitted to the Dominion when shipping and other conditions permit.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a
House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.