Lords Sitting of 15 March 1944

Preamble
The House met, The Lord STANMORE on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (WEST RIDING) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  INDIA (ATTACHMENT OF STATES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
  BECKETT HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY, BARNSLEY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

  FOOD FOR ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they have any information to give concerning the supply of food for the peoples of enemy-occupied countries, particularly Greece and Belgium; and to move for Papers. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, I rise to ask the question which stands in my name on the Notice Paper and to move for Papers. I should like in preface to say that I think the importance of our considering these matters is by no means limited to the particular response which the spokesman of the Government may find himself obliged to make. It is of the utmost importance that we should here give expression to the feelings of sympathy which exist very widely throughout the country and thereby to some extent, by keeping our attention directed to the sufferings of other peoples in the world, keep alive our own capacity for sympathy. One of the great perils in a time like this is that of necessity men's sensitiveness to horror becomes rather dulled. We read day by day of such appalling occurrences that if we had the same sensitiveness now as we
  30
  should have had concerning any one of them in the days of peace, life would be unendurable. And so there is no doubt a certain merciful Providence that arranges for this hardening of our sensibilities. But there is also in that a great danger, and especially for people like ourselves who, throughout the war, have been provided with the necessities of life in a most amazing degree, and who are perpetually grateful to the organization which has secured our being so well fed. We are under an obligation to turn our minds to those who, having the same enemies as ourselves, are suffering from that enmity in an altogether different fashion, and to let them know that we feel for them and are deeply concerned about their welfare.
  So my concern is partly to express these feelings in order that, by expression, they may be kept alive in us, and that we may avert that horrible state of things described in the line of Shakespeare, which haunts me every now and then in these days:
  "All pity choked by custom of fell deeds."
  The concern is very widespread. The letters that I have received since this question was put upon the Paper and the telegrams that have reached me yesterday and to-day from all parts of the country, show that there is a very deep and widespread concern, as indeed there ought to be, about this; not I think for the most part in any way condemning the Government, but only eager that we should press for the utmost to be done that can be done without damage to the war effort. And I am happy to know that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, himself welcomes the putting down of this question, partly in order that the subject may be ventilated but partly in order also that the Government may have an opportunity of making their own statement with regard to the matter, their own policy and their anticipations concerning it.
  Now we all agree that the chief way in which we can help the people who are suffering under German oppression is to win the war as quickly as possible. That is common at the back of all our minds, and therefore none of us desires any step to be taken that could in fact have the result of delaying our victory in the war. But we are concerned about what is happening in the meanwhile. The state of malnutrition in many of the

  31
  countries occupied by the Germans is becoming very grievous. I am not going to enter upon that field. My noble friend Lord Horder is going to follow on that subject later, and will speak obviously with the highest possible authority on the basis of the information that is available. We are confronted with a real tragedy over a vast area, of which the effects will be apparent long after the war has ceased. The actual death-roll is becoming very high. The incidence of disease shows how much resistance is being weakened, and there is a prospect in the future of a German nation with citizens fully nourished, strong, and vigorous, surrounded by neighbours whose physical vigour and perhaps nervous stability and even moral constancy have been undermined by the malnutrition they are suffering in these days.
  Everyone will agree that whatever can be done without danger to the war effort, without danger of postponing our victory, should be undertaken. The point we want to ask is precisely whether there are not some steps that could be taken without any of these dangers. I shall only mention three countries. They are those which have been specially in our minds at earlier times when the subject has been brought forward. The suffering in Greece was quite appalling, and a great deal of help was given. We have set the principle, at any rate, of the possibility of giving help to enemy-occupied territory by what was done for the people of Greece, where it is likely that the lives of something like 2,000,000 people were saved by what was undertaken. The process has been continued, the relief is still being brought in, and I believe—the noble Earl will tell us—the evidence is still good that what has been supplied has reached the people for whom it was intended and that what else they might have received under the German regulations has not been diminished. That that is so is certainly stated by those mainly responsible for the administration. Another country that has been very prominently before our thoughts is Belgium, where, no doubt, the able-bodied men have been fed by the occupying Power in order that they may be able to work; but the suffering among women and children has been very great, especially in the country districts, where it is seen that the scheme of distribution works much less well than
  32
  in the towns, or perhaps there are fewer there whose labour is required and so less care is taken about it.
  The proposal that has been put forward in the past, and which I venture to mention once more, is not that we should try in any measure to supply what we regard as adequate to feed these unhappy people, but that we should supply what could fairly be regarded as their medical requirements for the mere prevention of serious deterioration of health in the present and in the future. The special suggestions were for the supply of vitamin tablets and dried milk. The total tonnage wanted for each of the two nations mentioned—Greece and Belgium—was 22,000 tons annually. We have been assured that there is neutral shipping unable to be employed now but available for use in this connexion, so that no shipping may be taken away from what is required for the purposes of the war. If that is so, then apart from some other considerations that may be brought forward, and which are not present in my mind, it would seem reasonable to urge that this shipping should be employed in order to make available a supply of vitamins and dried milk for these people. I confess I do not quite know what the position is at present with regard to vitamins except that I understand they are treated as medical supplies and that it is in principle, therefore, possible to obtain navicerts to pass them through, whereas dried milk is treated as food. But where what is suggested is a very small supply of what is essential, not for fullness of physical vigour but to avoid radical deterioration of physical health, it would seem to us reasonable that that also should count as medical supplies. In other words, our proposition is not that the blockade itself should be weakened in principle at all, but that this one article or these two articles if necessary should be entered on the medical list and so be regarded and admitted in limited quantities.
  In view of the facts that have recently been pressed upon me, I must say something about at least one other country. We all know that that country—Polandhas suffered as perhaps no other has through the German tyranny. It is plainly the hardest of all for us to help otherwise than by winning the war, but even here it might be possible to arrange—if the

  33
  materials were forthcoming and the shipping were available—for the ships to pass through. It would have to be under similar arrangements as for Greece, arid German consent would be necessary. What is happening in Poland in this respect would seem to be that children up to the age of three are being tolerably well fed. They are being fed up to that age precisely because it is thought that they are unable to realize that they are Polish children and that They can be removed in a state of physical vigour and promise to centres where they are then Germanized. They are, in fact, being kept in life and vigour in order that they may be German citizens in future. How far any such hopes can in fact be realized, how far the knowledge of their origin can be kept from them permanently, I do not know, but that they should be maintained for such a purpose only throws into relief the horror of the treatment of the rest of the population.
  We have witnessed in Poland also that where any food is supplied it does reach those who are concerned. The Polish General Welfare Council has not been closed down, as one might have anticipated, but is still at work and active, and so are sonic branches of the Polish Red Cross. From all the countries from which we get evidence the testimony is unanimous, first, that the goods supplied do reach the people for whom they are intended—they are not confiscated for the benefit of the Germans—and the supply to them under the German system is not reduced in any way to match. In other words, the food does go to those for whom it is desirel. The question may be raised whether, if the scale of operations be extended, that can still be ensured. I see no way of answering that question except by trying by those who are responsible, and especially the authorities of the international Red Cross. They believe it can be done. In any case it would possible to reduce any damage that resulted within negligible proportions by the determination that the supply should immediately be stopped if we found that it was in the smallest degree abused.
  So then, if I may trouble your Lordships with a very few figures, let us just see the vast scale of this horror. No doubt the scale is itself one of the reasons which makes the authorities hesitate to take action at all. Yet I would venture to
  34
  suggest that to do even a little in this field, however far it is from meeting the real need, is better than to do nothing. There are in Greece something like 1,800,000 children (it is nearly 1,900,000) in want of swift help. There are in Holland about 300,000 children in similar need. I have not the figures from Norway but I doubt not they are very large. In Poland there are no fewer than 3,500,000 children in such want; in Czechoslovakia 1,600,000; in Yugoslavia 2,100,000. Those figures are limited to young children; that is to say to children at a time of life when malnutrition is likely to have a permanent effect in damaging their physique and, it may be, also their nervous stability and with it their moral stability. It is the future of a population of a continent that is involved. The very scale of it, as I have said, seems to supply a reason why we scarcely dare to undertake any remedy at all, and yet I would still plead that, however true that may be, to do all that we can do for even a small proportion of these children, even if it spells disappointment for others, is better than inactivity.
  If, briefly, I may put together the points on which I wish to ask that we may have an answer, they are these. And I may say I know perfectly well that the spokesman of the Government feels all these points every bit as acutely as I do and that his sympathy is with us absolutely to the full. First, then, the Germans have not so far taken food by reducing the other supplies. Secondly, neutral shipping, at least up to a considerable amount, is said to be obtainable, which would not therefore reduce the shipping supplies needed and available for the war effort. Thirdly, a point I have not yet mentioned, it would seem suitable that we should make the most generous response we can to the unanimous Resolution of the Senate in the United States of America, asking the State Department there to work out in conjunction with this country, Sweden and Switzerland, a system for moving food supplies to the people of Belgium, Norway, Poland, the Netherlands, Greece and Yugoslavia. I do not know, of course, what the State Department has found itself able as yet to set on foot in that direction, but I only trust that so far as possibility permits we may do our utmost to co-operate with it in meeting a most clamorous need that makes the strongest possible appeal to our sympathy. As I have said, I know that the Minister of Economic Warfare shares

  35
  our feelings, but I think it is our duty in such a case to urge the claim of compassion to the very utmost in the hope that action may result, even though it is bound to be inadequate to the greatness of the need, and also as a proof that we are not unmindful of the suffering of those who with us are facing the tyranny of a common foe. I beg leave to move.
  LORD HORDER: My Lords, it is true, as the right reverend Primate has informed your Lordships, that I have taken some pains to sift the evidence as far as possible on the medical situation in regard to the food position in enemy-occupied countries. I have had the benefit of help from colleagues and I would like especially to mention the help of Professor Young. I think it is a fact that in the past some rather wild statements have been made relative to famine and hunger conditions. Famine is not a matter concerning which medical investigation can throw light; famine either kills or it is relieved. Prolonged undernourishment is a much more serious medical problem than famine because prolonged under-nourishment leads to diseases of low resistance, the chief one of which, as your Lordships know, is tuberculosis, and to a state of affairs in a race or in a nation which finds its remedy, not in that generation, nor even in the next, but possibly in the third generation. His Majesty's Government may of course have information more recent and possibly even more authentic than the information I propose to give to your Lordships. It is even possible that the more recent information, if the Government possess it, may be of such a nature as to relieve the anxiety which the most reverend Primate has mentioned and which is stirring the minds and hearts of many people in this country. I hope it may be so.
  Our evidence, if I may say so, has been brought to us through three sources. The first source is a small one but important. It is the clinical examination of such refugees as have reached this country or reached Lisbon, a neutral port, during the last few months. Then we have some knowledge as to the value in terms of nutrition of the basic daily ration in enemy-occupied countries. From that we are able to calculate fairly nearly the degree of health which is obtainable in people living upon that allowed quantity
  36
  of food. Thirdly, we have some reports, not many, of conditions in those countries upon which—such is the prestige and the expert experience of the rapporteurs—we can rely. About refugees I have little to say. They are few, and it is of course obvious that they are not amongst the poorest and certainly not amongst the least robust in the countries from which they escape. Were they poor and lacking in some degree of vitality they would not be refugees. But even they, as recently as August last year, showed conditions which we recognize quite clearly as being only produced by prolonged malnutrition, including one which is a rather striking and in this country quite rare clinical observation—what we term hunger œdema, that is, hunger dropsy.
  As to the calory value of the basic ration, we have the best information from Belgium. It is in respect of Belgium, I may say, that most of our convincingly reliable information comes. In September of last year the basic daily ration in Belgium was about 1,260 calories. We usually consider that the calory value of a day's food required for health is 2,480. That is a figure that most of us accept. Therefore the value of the basic daily ration in Belgium was just over half of the minimum required for health, and was about half of the ration in Belgium during the war of 1914–18. The most reverend Primate referred to certain selected groups, such as infants and workers, who received supplements to their basic ration. That is correct, but when we remember the poverty of the people in general and the non-availability of food we see that the calory value in the case of the mass of the people is, as I have mentioned, roughly half at most of that which is necessary to keep a person in health. In France it appears that the calory value at the end of 1943 was considered to be about 1,080, which is even lower than the Belgian. Passing to reports which we really can rely upon, we have had recently a very full and valuable report from Dr. Heymans, a Nobel prize winner and professor in the University of Ghent. So revealing was his report that he was threatened at once by the Nazis and had to escape.
  The condition of the children over six is very important. It is true that under six years the children in Belgium receive supplements. These supplements are withdrawn when the child arrives at the

  37
  age of six. Adolescents from fourteen to twenty-one form another group in which, growth being at its maximum and development physiologically also being at its maximum, proper nourishment is required. They are suffering most because they are neither infants nor are they engaged in hard work on behalf of the occupying enemy. It is true that an attempt has been made by the Ministry of Agriculture in Belgium and by the International Red Cross to supplement through Lisbon the food of these two groups, but even this additional help leaves the adolescents particularly in a very bad state. Adults, Professor Heynians tells us, from a large investigation on this point at the Liege Polyclinic, have lost between 20 and 30 lb. weight in populated areas, and the estimates of the protein substances in the blood, which are regarded as a very good means of testing malnutrition at the moment, show a fall in a large number of cases investigated of from 20 to 50 per cent. Pregnant women show a drop of 80 per cent. in the normal weight gain which should occur to them during pregnancy. Infants at birth show a drop in weight averaging 2.2 lb. Investigations carried out upon students nurses and hospital personnel reveal an equally striking evidence of malnutrition.
  Then there is the matter of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis in its incidence and perhaps in the severity of particular cases may be regarded, I think, as a very good measure of the state of nutrition in any country or group of people. It is par excellence the disease of lowered resistance. In this matter the position is very serious indeed in Belgium, in France, in Poland and in Greece. In Belgium the number of tuberculosis cases which were receiving supplementary rations on account of the disease rose sharply from 70,000 in December, 1941, to 110,000 in February, 1943. In the fifteen months between December, 1941, and February, 1943, the rise in the incidence of the disease, judged by this evidence, that is by the extra rations allowed to cases of active tuberculosis, was 58.5 per cent. But it is not only the number of cases which is the measure of under-nourishment. The fulminating of many of the cases, Professor Hewmans points out, is another aspect which has the same significance. We used to talk about galloping consumption—galloping consumption meaning
  38
  the fulminating feature of pulmonary tuberculosis—in this country as, I will not say a rare, but an uncommon disease, as it has been in most European countries for the last two generations. To-day fulminating pulmonary tuberculosis is experienced in Belgium, in France, in Greece, so that a disease which usually, if it is going to kill, takes years or at least months to kill, now frequently in these countries kills a patient in a few weeks. So as I have said, the fact of famine, terrible though that is, is far from being our main concern as doctors. We are concerned, as I have said, with this state of prolonged under-nourishment which leads to diseases like tuberculosis and to states of lowered vitality from which recovery can only occur in generations rather than in a lifetime.
  I have given your Lordships a few facts because I believe them to be true, authentic, credible, but also because there are still some people here who doubt that these cases are as bad as they are stated. They consider folk who have striven to get help to our stricken allies to be enthusiastic dreamers. Well, as a humanist, I am compelled to join with the Archbishop in this appeal that he has made to the Government, not, as he said, to do anything which is impracticable, not to do anything which will ease the situation for the enemy, but still to strain every nerve to see what can be done before these friends of ours find themselves in even greater peril than they are at present. I think that much credit is deserved by the Government for the efforts which they have already made, particularly in Greece. I understand that the Nazis have not prevented the food supplies sent to Greece from reaching the people for whom they were intended. Well, why not try elsewhere? We know the risk, but why not take the risk? The gesture itself, allowing the risk, would be, as the most reverend Primate said, very valuable. It is not, I understand, intended to send large ships with large cargoes of foodstuffs. It is proposed, very modestly, to send certain concentrates—powdered milk, certain vitamins which can, at most, be regarded as first aid nutritional relief.
  VISCOUNT LEVERHULME: My Lords, I do not wish to take up more than a small portion of your time on this occasion. The most reverend Primate has put before us a very clear outline of this

  39
  grave and difficult problem, and he has referred to the deep and widespread concern which it arouses both here and in the country of our great Ally, the United States of America. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, has spoken with great authority on the medical aspect of the matter, and, quite clearly, it would be an impertinence on my part to attempt to add anything to what he has said. My reason for wishing to add my voice to those of the two previous speakers, is that I have already had occasion to interest myself in this question of food relief in enemy-occupied countries. Last June, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, very kindly received a deputation, which I had the honour of taking to him, from the Anglo-Belgian Union, of which I have the privilege at the present time of being President. The Anglo-Belgian Union is a society without any political affinities. It is solely concerned in fostering good relationship, understanding and friendship between this country and Belgium. We came away, after our visit to the Minister, if not entirely satisfied at any rate with a clearer perception of all the complexities of the problem.
  The Motion before us is a wide one. It speaks of the peoples of enemy-occupied countries, but it particularizes. It refers especially to Greece and Belgium. If I lay emphasis on Belgium it is not because my sympathies are limited, or because I am unaware that the same problem exists in a great many other parts of the Continent. In the case of Belgium, as we have been reminded, the request is for 2,000 tons a month of powdered milk and vitamins. We are assured, as the most reverend Primate has said, that the necessary supplies can be obtained and that transportation can be provided. I understand that there exists the machinery for distributing the supplies, under medical supervision, to the mothers and children who are so desperately in need of them. His Majesty's Government are only asked to issue the necessary navicerts. If it were found that the first consignment, or any considerable Tart of it, was seized by the enemy and used for his own purposes, further supplies could be stopped. At any rate, our friends in Belgium would know that we had made the attempt. It may not be possible to apply the same kind of scheme to all enemy-occupied countries, but if yon cannot do a good
  40
  turn to all your friends, is that a reason why you should not attempt to help some of them? All these occupied countries are not equally accessible; their circumstances vary. In the case of Belgium, let it be remembered that she is the most tightly-packed country in the world, with over 70o persons per square mile. The figure for Germany, I think, is about half that. Before the war Belgium imported 70 per cent. of her foodstuffs. These figures are an index of her present privations.
  The children in occupied countries are going to be the men and women of those countries in the future. Their health and vigour are going to be vitally affected by what is happening to them now. It should surely be the policy of the United Nations, in the interests of the future peace of the world, to see that, so far as it is in their power to prevent it, the stamina of the populations of countries adjacent to Germany is not, in the years to come, dangerously reduced below the stamina of the German population. In the course of a war circumstances change rapidly and frequently alter completely. Therefore the position now may well be different from what it was last summer. I earnestly trust that His Majesty's Government will again weigh the pros and cons very carefully in the balance and that they will be able to reconsider their previous decision.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the dominant feeling that must be aroused in the mind of every one of your Lordships in listening to the very impressive speeches which we have heard must be wonder at the incredible wickedness of the small knot of Germans who govern Germany in plunging the world into the terrible horrors which we are now enduring. I quite recognize that this question, grave as it is, is only one of the many disastrous consequences of that step. An immensely impressive document was published, I think yesterday, by the Soviet Embassy, explaining that the horrors which have been perpetrated in Russia were not merely the casual horrors of warfare, but were deliberately planned by the German Government before the war began.
  I agree with the most reverend Primate that even if we can bring only a very small remedy to the evils which we are now discussing, and, of course, a still

  41
  smaller one to the total evils of war, I am sure the Government would be the first to say that that does not release us from the obligation to do everything we can to mitigate the horrors which are so prevalent. The question of whether we ought to do anything, and, if so, what we can do, is an extremely difficult one to answer. The case is very difficult indeed. I speak from personal knowledge gained in the last war, although, of course, I recognize the immense differences between the two wars. I know how tremendously difficult this question is, arid it is particularly difficult because, as so often happens in war, it is extremely difficult to be certain about the conditions of the problem. In this particular case they can scarcely be fully known, and that applies particularly to the conditions which make it difficult or impossible for us to take any steps to remedy the horrors which exist. But, though those thins are doubtful, the want of the children is undoubted. I am not going to attempt to add to what has been said by the most reverend Primate, by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Leverhulme. Nobody has ever disputed the case which they have made. There is no doubt that very grave suffering is at this moment being imposed on large sections of the population, and particularly on the children, and that that immediate suffering is but a very small fraction of the ultimate injury which may accrue to them. We shall not know, or even be able to guess, ail the injury which has been done until the war is over and the testing time of sanity arises, so that we can reckon up what it is that the war has destroyed and the evil that the war has done.
  Holding that view, which I am sure is the view of everyone of your Lordships, the answer is quite obvious. It is that by far the most effective remedy for which we can hope is the victory of our Forces and the consequent establishment of peace. Peace is the real answer to all these problems, and I most heartily agree with those who say that it would be an entirely false humanity to postpone even for a day the establishment of peace in order to minister to the terrible wants that exist as a consequence of war. To my mind—I do not know whether I am right—the whole question depends simply on this: Are the remedies proposed by the most reverend Primate—and by others,
  42
  but we are dealing with his proposals now—going in fact to postpone the re-establishment of peace? I think that that is the crucial question. If we take his advice, are we really going to add to the power of German resistance so that the enemy will be able to go on fighting a little longer and consequently postpone the advent of peace a little longer?
  I fully agree that the answer to that question is very difficult to arrive at, but obviously the Government have far better and fuller information than any of us can have as to the answer which should be given. If my noble friend, when he comes to reply, tells us that he is quite satisfied that any attempt to take such a step as the most reverend Primate has recommended would in fact postpone peace, or would in his belief postpone peace, then as far as I am concerned I should not wish to press the Government an inch further. I do wish very respectfully to say to the Government, however, that they must go as far as that. It is not enough to say that it might possibly do so. After all, risks must be taken in human life. Merely to say that possibly, conceivably, the adoption of anything which would diminish the sufferings of young children might help the Germans in their fight does not seem to me to be enough. That is the view put forward by some people, and, when one hears that said, one would like to ask: "You say that it might postpone peace. Does that mean real postponement, or is it merely a kind of suggestion that it might enable the Germans to go on fighting for another day?" It seems to me that it is on the answer to a question of that kind that the proposals of the most reverend Primate depend. If the answer is that what is proposed might conceivably postpone peace for a very short time, that is not necessarily a complete answer or a complete reason for not taking action immediately in order with certainty to diminish the frightful suffering which is being caused at the present moment. The evil is very certain indeed; let us be quite sure that the danger of the remedy is equally certain before we turn it down altogether.
  I should like to re-echo what was said by the most reverend Primate as to my noble friend's personal attitude in this matter. I have not the slightest doubt that he is as anxious as any one of us can

  43
  be to diminish the suffering of the children in this matter. I am quite sure he is, as indeed I hope and believe all his colleagues are likewise. I do not want to say anything that could possibly be regarded as offensive or combative, but speaking, if I may, from my own experience, which cannot affect anyone now living, as it refers to a time so long ago, I think there is a danger of being too much affected by official objections to a step of this kind. The natural bias of the official mind, rightly and properly, is against the trying of any experiment, however important and however hopeful a result it may seem to promise. I therefore venture to say that I trust the Government will in this matter act on their own judgment individually, without being too much influenced by official advice upon it.
  I am sure that if they arrive at a conclusion which will be a negative conclusion as far as this Motion is concerned, much as I should regret it and as many others would regret it, I should personally feel that there was nothing further to be said or done, but that no doubt the great probability was that their decision was the right one and that we must accept it, as it will be accepted. The Government would certainly wish to do something, and I only venture to urge the necessity of their being quite convinced that the danger to the war effort of this country against Germany would be seriously imperilled by taking the step mentioned. If they are of that opinion and have put aside the mere argument that there is a vague possibility that it would do so, then we must accept their decision, however disappointing it may be, and hope that the coming of peace will put an end to all these harassing difficulties and decisions.
  THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for having raised this question, not only on account of the generous way in which he did so, but because it gives me an opportunity of attempting to remove certain misapprehensions which, I have reason to know, are widely held in different parts of the country. I should also like to say that I am glad that it was the most reverend Primate who has raised the question. It
  44
  is, in particular, his part to bring the policy of His Majesty's Government to the bar of Christian principles and His Majesty's Government have no wish that their policy should be judged by any other standard. But when you are attempting to apply Christian principles in war-time you are faced with a continuous choice of evils, because the whole fact of war is proof of the failure of one party or the other to attain the Christian standard. And therefore the question is not whether the policy of His Majesty's Government is causing evil or not, but whether we are making the choice of the lesser evil. I should like to say that from the moment I took office I approached the question which your Lordships have been debating this afternoon from that angle, and, together with my advisers, have constantly re-examined it from that angle since. And may I say, in answer to my noble relative Lord Cecil of Chelwood, that whatever officials were like in my noble friend's day twenty years ago, I can assure him that my advisers in this matter are neither hidebound nor prejudiced. I can assure him that every change in the situation—and the situation is constantly changing—we try to take into full account, and to see whether it requires some adjustment of the policy of the blockade.
  May I ask your Lordships then to examine the central problem with which we are faced? In laying it before you I am bound to put the facts and figures in a somewhat dispassionate and cold manner, but I hope I shall not give the impression that I am anxious to minimize the extent of suffering which undoubtedly exists in occupied Europe to-day. In many parts of every occupied country the most dire suffering undoubtedly exists, and that is a terribly true fact that we must never forget. But the governing fact is that since 1940 Germany has controlled by far the greater part of Europe, and with systematic Teutonic thoroughness and power of organization she has been able to pool the food resources of Europe in such a way that she can deliver to every portion of the population in every part of Europe roughly what amount of food she considers to be in her own interest.
  When Europe was overrun by Germany and the blockade was applied, many people seemed to think that Europe would

  45
  starve to death, but they forgot the fact that before the war Europe was more than 90 per cent. self-sufficient in food supplies. The primary effect of the German control was to divert the channels of trade. The noble Viscount, Lord Leverhulme, reminded your Lordships that Belgium, prior to the war, used to import over 70 per cent. of her food supplies from abroad. How did Belgium pay for these imports? She paid for them by exports across the oceans. Now these exports all go to Germany, and in return Germany is bound to send to Belgium, or cause to be sent to Belgium from other occupied countries, sufficient food supplies to enable Belgian industry to function to the greatest advantage of the German State. Being in this position, Germany is also able to decide how much man-power shall be devoted to agriculture and the growing of food. She has, as a matter of fact, increased be man-power engaged in agriculture by several hundred thousands of people; and if we had not applied the blockade and prevented food coming to Europe, all these people would be serving either in the German Army or in munition factories.
  In applying the blockade we have endeavoured, as far as possible, to mitigate its impact on our unfortunate Allies in the occupied countries. For instance, we have not only allowed but facilitated imports of food from neutral countries within what we call the "blockade area"—that is countries like Spain and Portugal—because these countries are also within the purchasing reach of Germany. By giving exchange facilities and in other ways we have facilitated the dispatch of Portuguese fish, for example, to distressed cases in occupied. countries. Again, we have taken Vitamin D off the contraband list altogether because we felt that that could be done without seriously assisting the enemy, and also because it is a most important vitamin for growing children. We have also made it plain to neutral countries in Europe that if they were willing and able to receive children and other refugees from the occupied countries, Great Britain would make no objection to these neutral countries importing more food in order to sustain these refugees. In this and other ways we have tried to mitigate the effect of the blockade on the unfortunate inhabitants of the occupied territories, but otherwise we have had to enforce the blockade strictly for the reasons I have
  46
  given, and thereby have forced hundreds of thousands of people away from the German munition factories and army on to agriculture.
  As I have indicated, Germany now has all occupied Europe rationed and organized in her own interests, and is able to send food from one country to another, although both countries may be short of food, and so keep the level of supply at just what height in any country she wishes, just as the Metropolitan Water Board controls the levels of their numerous reservoirs, each at its appropriate level in relation to the amount of water the Board can command. In the case of Greece, the Germans made a calculation and came to the conclusion that they would lose more than they would gain by trying to preserve the economy and life of Greece. They came to the conclusion that it was not worth the extra effort because Greece was a large importer of foodstuffs and had very little to contribute to the German war machine. So they simply let Greece starve with the cold, calculated brutality which is characteristic of them. Sometimes we are reproached with treating Greece differently. It was not we who have treated Greece differently, it was the Germans; I shall speak of what the Allies have tried to do in the case of Greece later on. I ought also to make it plain that the Germans have also treated Poland, Russia, and Yugoslavia differently from the countries in Western Europe, principally because of the savagery of the fighting, the warfare on the Russian Front and on the Polish Front (which has never surrendered, but is continually maintained by the Polish underground army). The same is true of Yugoslavia. This has prevented the Germans from being able to utilize the territories of these countries which they have overrun for the benefit of their war machine in the manner they had expected. Therefore, they have revenged themselves in according them appreciably worse economic treatment than they have meted out to other countries.
  In Western Europe Germany has been engaged in extracting the maximum amount of war effort from the unfortunate people she has conquered while supplying them with the minimum amount of food required for the purpose. It is a mistake to think of Belgium as in a

  47
  different category in this respect from any of the other countries of Western Europe. In fact, all political boundaries in occupied Europe have temporarily ceased to have any significance. Occupied Europe is one economic unit and is worked by the Germans as such. There are of course within that unit individual differences but they are not differences dictated by political boundaries. There are differences of function. People get greater rations in accordance with their value to the German war machine. There are also the differences between the rich and the poor. But the greatest difference of all is between town and country. However efficient their machine, the Germans do not find it possible to extract as much food as they would like out of the country peasant, and the only respect in which Belgium is in any way different from any other country in Western Europe is that the urban population there is greater than in most other parts of Europe. The people of Lille are just as hungry as the people of Brussels, and indeed there are parts of Europe where hunger conditions according to my information are definitely worse than anything known in Belgium. Therefore I know of no reason why relief should be confined to Belgium, and I am quite sure it is the last thing our gallant Belgian Allies would ask.
  I think it was the most reverend Primate who spoke of the relative difficulty of getting food to Belgium or to Poland. I have had many interviews with beneficent people on this subject and I find there are many people who are under the impression that it is much easier to get food to Belgium than to Poland. That, my Lords, is an entire mistake. You could not send any food to Belgium without permission of the German Government, and if you had permission of the German Government there would be no transport impossibility in sending food to Poland. Therefore it is not true to say that the Belgians are in that respect in any different category. Certainly the conditions in Brussels are better than the conditions that exist in Warsaw.
  The Advisory Medical Council over which my noble friend Lord Horder so ably presides, recently published some very distressing figures about the conditions in Belgium and the noble Lord quoted some of them this afternoon. I am not unfamiliar with those figures
  48
  which are taken from the report issued by Dr. Heymans. That report was published in December, 1942, and referred mainly to the previous twelve months—that is to say, it covered the abnormally hard winter of 1941–42 and the very serious conditions that resulted in the next few months from that winter. Noble Lords will remember that that winter was particularly serious. The frost was so hard that millions of tons of potatoes were frozen in the clamp, the canals were frozen, and even railway engines and trucks would get frozen up at night, so that not only transport by canal but also transport by railway was seriously interfered with. Since then, I am happy to tell your Lordships, there has been some improvement in Belgium. For instance, the bread ration has been increased twice since the last harvest and the quality of the bread is better. The fat ration has also been increased and deliveries are more regular.
  There is one point in the most reverend Primate's speech to which I should like to refer. Other noble Lords also touched upon it. They warned us that the effect of this war may be to leave a Germany inhabited by healthy people whereas the countries that were occupied will be inhabited by emaciated and permanently weakened people. As I said just now, I do not wish to be taken as in any degree minimizing the terrible evils that do undoubtedly exist, but I think it is important that we should preserve a sense of proportion in all these matters. Therefore it is germane to remind your Lordships of what took place as a result of the last war. I can remember, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Cecil, as Minister of Blockade in the last war, will remember, that exactly the same fear was expressed in 1918 and 1919 about German youth. The hunger conditions existing in Germany in 1918 were prob. ably worse than anything existing at any rate in Western Europe to-day. I remember that many people in those days were afraid that one whole generation of the German race would be so emaciated of weakened by that hunger that it would be not until the next generation that Germany could recover. That is the generation of Germans which have fought this war, and I do think it is important to remember that fact because it enables us to hope at any rate that the physical injury to the young people of the

  49
  occupied territories may not be so great as some of us fear. I do not think anyone can say that the present generation of young Germans shows any physical deterioration compared to their fore-fathers.
  But, my Lords, in regard to the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, concerning Belgium, I am able to give figures which I certainly find to some extent reassuring. They are the figures of the death-rate in Belgium. They also have the value of enabling us to make some comparison with the conditions of Belgium in this war and in the last war. In 1914 the death-rate per thousand in Belgium was 14.14. By 1918 it had gone up to 20.82. That was a very terrible increase. In 1939 at the beginning of this war it was 13.15, practically the same as it was at the beginning of the last war, and I wall give your Lordships the rate for every year of this war. In 1939 it was 13.15; in 1940 it was 15.08; in 1941 it was 14.37; and in 1942 it was 14.3. For the first half of the year 1943—I have not got the figures for the second half—deaths were at the rate of 13.0 per thousand. Those figures to my mind are remarkable for two reasons. Not only do they show that the death-rate in Belgium is little if any higher than before the outbreak of war, but we must remember also that a very large number of men of military age have been taken out of Belgium into Germany for forced labour. It is not pregnant women and adolescent children of 12 to 14 who have been deported by the Germans. They have deported what ought to be the strongest and healthiest section of the community. Therefore these figures would appear to be better than they really seem at first sight.
  My second comment is that these figures are a great deal better than the figures of the last war, and that in spite of the fact that during the last war there was a vast organization under the auspices of Mr. Hoover administering great quantities of relief in Belgium. General Ludendorff, in a book published after the last war, said that relief had been of considerable benefit to Germany. The figures I have just quoted to your Lordships seem to show that it was of very little benefit to Belgium.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I ask whether the noble Earl could tell us where these recent figures he has
  50
  quoted of the death-rate in Belgium come from? Are they from the existing Belgian Government or from the German Government?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: These figures are the figures officially published in Belgium. My Department have no reason to believe that they are faked or that they do not represent the facts. We, of course, have to deal with great masses of figures and returns from all over occupied Europe which reach us in various ways, and we are also in touch with any person who comes from Belgium to this country. Therefore we have to make an estimate as to the reliability of all the figures which reach us. We have no reason to believe that these figures are in any way faked. They do strike me as being very significant. I have also the infantile mortality figures. Unfortunately I have not got them for the last war, but I have figures for some years prior to this war. In 1928 the infantile mortality rate was 87 per thousand, and it very curiously rose in 1929 and 1930, although those were years of great prosperity when the post-war boom was at its highest and before the slump reached Belgium. In 1929 the rate rose to 104 per thousand and in 1930 it was 93 per thousand. By 1939, just before the outbreak of this war, the rate had been reduced to 73 per thousand. It rose sharply in 1940 to 89 per thousand. I do not think that is at all strange when one considers the horrors of the German invasion. In 1941 it fell to 83, in 1942 it fell to 78, and during the first halt of 1943 infantile mortality was at the rate of 80 per thousand. These figures show that infantile mortality is definitely higher than it was just before the war but that the position is better than it was twenty years ago when national hygiene was not as good as it is to-day. I quote these figures merely to try to put the isolated statements which reach us into some perspective. A statement may be perfectly true in itself, but unless you can give it some statistical background it does not give the whole picture.
  For the reasons I have given it is impossible to treat this question of relief on a national basis. I would remind your Lordships that there are Norwegian, French and Dutch sailors in Norwegian, French and Dutch ships, as well as the sailors and ships of other Allies, who

  51
  are risking their lives every day in bringing food to this country. They are willing, and indeed eager, to do this because they recognize that these islands are the pivot of the resistance to Germany and the base from which their own countries will be liberated. What justification should we have in asking them to risk their lives in bringing food to the exclusion of their own countries to countries which are in no greater straits? Therefore I say that the only possible basis on which a relief scheme could be administered without manifest injustice would be relief to the most necessitous cases irrespective of locality.
  I think the most reverend Primate went some way to recognize that when he concentrated his plea on the nursing mothers and adolescent children. Nursing mothers and children of all ages already get supplementary rations in all occupied Europe, though I quite agree—no one can doubt it after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Horder—that these supplementary rations, particularly in the case of children of twelve to fourteen, are generally inadequate. But I do assure your Lordships that the administrative difficulties of arranging a relief scheme for these individuals would be very formidable indeed. In the first place no sort of machinery exists for carrying out this work. People talk about the Red Cross, but the International Red Cross was designed for a totally different and much smaller and simpler task, that of transmitting parcels to prisoners of war in properly constituted prisoner of war camps. Outside prisoners of war camps, the International Red Cross is just a voluntary society, and voluntary societies are quite unable to exercise any control in the areas in which they operate.
  I do not think that the difficulties of travel and communication in German-occupied Europe are always fully realized. I would like to give your Lordships one or two cases to illustrate the sort of thing I mean. I recall a case in which a rather important consignment of medical supplies was sent, in 1942, to a certain destination in an occupied country. It was entrusted to the care of a society whose complete integrity and conscientiousness are undoubted. The supplies arrived at their destination in the middle of 1942, but it was not until nearly a year later
  52
  that we were able to obtain confirmation of the fact, and an inquiry regarding the subsequent distribution of these goods has remained unanswered until the present time. Again, at the end of 1942, a reputable and completely trustworthy society was charged, in another part of Europe, with the distribution of certain supplies which had been admitted through the blockade, but it was not until nine months later that we were able to obtain any account of the way in which the distribution had been carried out. I could quote many more instances to show that it is quite impossible for anybody in England, or in any other country, to control the distribution of food to necessitous cases in the manner which the most reverend Primate seemed to visualize.
  Even if you were able to establish control of the distribution so that the goods really did go to the people for whom they were intended, that would be perfectly valueless unless you could also control the basic ration. If you could not control the basic ration, the Germans, by reducing that basic ration, could nullify the supplementary ration. I gathered from the speech of the most reverend Primate that he was under the impression that the Germans have never reduced rations on account of food being taken into occupied countries from outside. What the most reverend Primate does not seem to take fully into account, is that the basic ration in occupied Europe is constantly fluctuating just as it is in this country. We open our paper, or we listen to the wireless, and we learn that the Minister of Food has reduced the cheese ration, and increased the butter ration, or whatever it is, and that so many points will buy something next month whereas to-day that number of points buys either more or less. That is going on all over occupied Europe just as it is in England, and it is the only way in which controllers can adjust their resources.
  Therefore, it would be impossible to say that the Germans had reduced the basic ration on account of the supplementary ration, but if the most reverend Primate thinks that they would not do it then I very respectfully beg to disagree with him on the point. When we realize how short of food Europe is, when we realize the dangers by which Germany is faced in consequence of the loss of the Ukraine and the peril to her other great granary in

  53
  Rumania, can any reasonable man doubt that the Germans would avail themselves of the amount of food going into a country in order manipulate the basic ration in such a way that the benefit of the imported food redounded to them rather than to the peoples of the conquered countries? The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said it was not enough for us to have hypothetical reasons—suspicions or fears, I think, were the words he used. But this is actually what happened in Belgium in the last war. As I have been able to show your Lordships to-day, there was this vast relief scheme going on for over two years—conducted by Mr. Hoover—in which millions of pounds were spent, and we had General Ludendorff boasting, at the end of the war, that that was of benefit to Germany. Surely the way in which that happened was that less food was sent from Germany to Belgium than would have been sent if those relief supplies had not been going in. That is what I believe in fact occurred, and, as I have been able to show your Lordships, there are vital statistics bearing on this. The death-rate was very much higher under that system than anything which has been experienced in this war. Therefore I say that it is not reasonable to suppose that the Germans would not avail themselves of any considerable quantity of food that was imported in this way. And I think it is very important that people should realize that the quantity of food must be considerable if it is to do any good.
  I am afraid that I have already detained your Lordships longer than I meant to do, but, if I were to trespass that much further on your Lordships' time, I could show you that some of the proposals put forth by the protagonists of relief will not bear mathematical examination. Some of those protagonists in one breath say that the people of such-and-such a country are not getting more than half the number of calories that they require, and in the next breath they say that it is only a question of sending 2,000 tons of foodstuffs a month or something of that sort. If you are going to make any impression on the most necessitous cases in Europe, very large amounts of food will be involved as well as great organization. If that food went into Europe, although those individual people might, and probably would, get those food parcels, the basic ration which they also get from the German authorities would in
  54
  fact have a corresponding amount knocked off it.
  The most reverend Primate referred to the Resolution passed by the Senate of the United States. I hope that everybody who reads that Resolution will do so carefully, because it is a carefully-worded Resolution. Your Lordships will naturally not expect me to comment on a Resolution passed by the Senate of the United States, but I will say that ever since the United States came into the war the United States Government and His. Majesty's Government have been daily collaborating on the policy of blockade, and it is a United Nations policy and not merely the policy of this country.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Leverhulme, said that if any scheme was tried and it was found that advantage was being taken of it by the Germans it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to stop it, It would be technically possible to stop it, and we could do so, but what do your Lordships think the result would be for the people in the occupied countries, who had become entirely dependent on the food which was coming in from abroad? If that were shut off, I have no doubt what the German reaction would be; the Germans would simply allow those people to starve, as they did the people of Greece, and we should then be told, and not without reason, that the last state of that house was worse than the first. I think that it is a most dangerous thought with which to comfort ourselves in this matter.
  In the case of Greece, it has been necessary to erect most elaborate machinery. There is a Swedish-Swiss Relief Commission under the auspices of the International Red Cross, and they are charged with the duty of seeing that the Germans do not steal the produce of the country, and also that certain food supplies come from German-occupied Europe as well as from abroad. The most reverend Primate challenged me to say that the Germans had broken their undertakings with regard to Greece. I must ask him not to press me on that point, but I will say this, that our experience in Greece has not been such as to encourage us to think that a system of control of that kind would be easy to administer in other parts of occupied Europe.
  The most reverend Primate asked me some questions about the food sent to

  55
  Greece. This, as many of your Lordships know, was originally 15,000 tons a month, but substantial additions have been made since the scheme began, with the result that the total monthly quantities allotted are now between 20,000 and 21,000 tons, and include 600 tons of milk every month, and vitamin concentrates as, well. Since the Greek scheme was started, over 300,000 tons of food have been imported into Greece-300,000 tons for a very small country with a population of 7,000,000. I ask those of your Lordships who think that small quantities of food would suffice to deal with the problem in other parts of Europe to calculate the sort of tonnage which would in fact be involved in attempting to deal with even the most necessitous cases for the whole of Europe.
  This food is very largely the gift of the Canadian and American Governments. It comes in ten Swedish ships specially released for the purpose. The most reverend Primate was quite right in saying that shipping is not a difficulty so long as Sweden is willing to release ships from the Baltic for the purpose. I feel that your Lordships would like to thank the Swedish Government for the invaluable help which they have given to the cause of humanity in this matter. They have organized the whole scheme, and they have never failed us at any turn. Our thanks are also due to the International Red Cross and to the Canadian and American Governments for the generosity which they have shown, and also to the Royal Hellenic Government, without whose initiative and persistence this scheme would never have seen the light of day, and who have readily incurred very heavy financial obligations under it.
  I have endeavoured to give your Lordships a picture of the hunger situation in occupied Europe and of the reasons which have governed the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter. We have attempted to deal with the facts of the case; not dogma but common sense has been our guide. In so far as we have been able to mitigate the impact of the blockade, we have done so. We have permitted the import of food from neutral countries in the blockade area. We have permitted the import of Vitamin D. We have said that we would facilitate the migration of children to neutral countries. We have also made the great experiment of the
  56
  food relief scheme for Greece. Any other suggestions that can be made we will always examine with care and sympathy. I do not refuse any request that the most reverend Primate has made, because, as he has pointed out, the situation is constantly changing, and if circumstances ever permit us to mitigate the lot of our Allies without injuring our war effort, we should be very glad to take advantage of those changed circumstances.
  But there is one thing we will not do: we will not do anything that is going to prolong the war. The hunger conditions that prevail in Europe to-day are by no means the worst conditions that prevail. Daily the most appalling atrocities and outrages are being perpetrated—murders, tortures, blackmailing, imprisonments—all have been committed wholesale by the Nazi monster. The annals of history can show nothing worse than the calculated, scientific bestiality which is Hitler's New Order. Let us beware that in trying to save the health of the young people of the occupied territories we do not prolong by a single day the appalling degradations and horrors to which they are subject. Let us also beware lest by prolonging the war we sacrifice the lives of the thousands of young men who, from all the Allied countries, are marching to liberate Europe.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to express very sincere thanks to the noble Earl for the statement he has made and to say that I think it has been amply worth while to give an occasion for such a statement. It will allay anxieties in many quarters if you show—what members of this House would have known without that being done—how eager are the Government, and the noble Earl himself in particular, to relieve any suffering so far as that can be done compatibly with the maintenance of the war effort at its maximum. The area of agreement between those of us who had spoken before and the noble Earl is very great. I should like to emphasize how closely we are agreed over nine-tenths of the whole subject; and, for the rest, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said earlier, I shall—as I perforce must—accept his assurance that the Government are watching every opportunity and will take it as soon as it comes. I would only, if I might, offer a few reflections on what

  57
  he has said, inasmuch as he has kindly indicated that he will consider anything that is put forward.
  I was not greatly consoled by being reminded that those who were under-nourished in Germany at the end of the last war are the vigorous soldiers of Germany to-day, because they are also the hysterical people who made the Nazi movement. I do not think the present German youth is a good advertisement of the moral wholesomeness of what Germany was then going through. But the particular point that I wish urge quite strongly is that when the opportunity comes, if it is not here now, we should, at first at any rate, concentrate on this problem of the mothers and the young children who do affect the future, obviously, in a greater degree than anybody else, ark who can be relieved—so one is assured on medical authority—against the worst damage by a comparatively small amount of relief. It is a great thing that Vitamin D has been struck off the list of contraband, and it will be a great consolation to many people to know that that has happened. If it is possible also to increase the supply of dried milk for those categories it will be a great relief for the future.
  Everybody must recognize that the adequate feeding of the people suffering from under-nourishment throughout Europe now is quite impossible and cannot be contemplated. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Horder, said, a matter of first-aid relief that we are asking for at the earliest possible moment. I do not think therefore that the Hoover scheme or the use the Germans made of it is at all necessarily a sound analogy. The amount of benefit the Germans could derive from this sort of supply of dried milk in addition to vitamin tablets would at, least be vastly smaller, if they could receive it. But having said that and submitted it for the noble Earl's consideration as the circumstances change, I wish to thank the noble Earl most sincerely for the statement he has made, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  REORGANIZATION AREAS MEASURE, 1944
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved to resolve, That in accordance
  58
  with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganization Areas Measure, 1944, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have to move that the Reorganization Areas Measure, 1944, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. When I introduced this Measure into the Church Assembly it took me an hour arid a half to expound its provisions. I could not imagine that your Lordships will wish me to repeat that performance here. Even the summary of the Measure which you will find attached to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee takes five closely printed pages, and really cannot be further abbreviated. I must therefore content myself with expressing the general purpose of this Measure, and that call be done very shortly by reading one paragraph of the Appendix to the Report:
  "In many of the large towns and cities which have suffered from attack from the air, the destruction of churches, parish halls, vicarages and other church buildings is very great, and in most of those areas it will not be desirable either to rebuild the churches or to restore the parishes exactly as they were before. In the same areas civil replanning is or will be taking place which may vitally affect the distribution of the population and its density. In these circumstances the church must be able to replan for its own purposes and have machinery to put its plans into effect so that church life may be restarted on a firm basis, with churches and other buildings sited in the right place, and parochial boundaries drawn to fit the new conditions."
  That process, which will begin immediately the war is over, cannot be met at all by small adjustments of parochial boundaries and so forth. A far more drastic treatment is called for. I could tell you of many areas in my own diocese which are so affected. One comes to my mind in which of six contiguous parishes only one of the parish churches stands at all at this moment. I could tell you of another area in which the population after the war, if one can assume that replanning will be carried through, will be reduced by one-half. In such areas all you can do is to take the whole area as a unit and replan it from the start, say which churches you wish to rebuild, where you wish to site them, and what parishes you need to deal with the pastoral supervision of that area adequately. But if you are going to do that, you will have to deal with every kind of consequent

  59
  detail, ranging from the number of clergy who are to be there employed down to what is to happen to the monuments in the churches which you are not going to rebuild. The Church has no machinery for dealing with such a process at all. Nor should it he expected that it would have, for conditions like these have never existed before.
  This Measure provides the machinery needed for this purpose. It applies only to such areas as I have described, which are certified as Ecclesiastical Reorganization Areas by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It applies only for a limited time. Such areas have to be defined within seven years, and schemes have to be defined within ten years. But where and while this Measure applies it is both comprehensive and drastic in its powers—comprehensive because, as I have said, it has got to deal with every contingency which may arise, drastic because it is no good having a plan unless you can put it into operation. And we do desire and mean to see that as soon as possible after the war in these areas affected, dislocated whether by war damage or the changing population, the Church may start again its work fully equipped and provided with a firm basis. The Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee quite rightly says that such reorganizations inevitably involve widespread interference with existing rights "of parishioners, incumbents, patrons and others." It cannot be otherwise when you are dealing with such a problem, but the Ecclesiastical Committee are satisfied that proper regard has been paid to their rights. One cannot avoid a disturbance of them, but the Measure abounds in provisions to see that the fullest possible consideration is given to all interests.
  In the preparation of a scheme of reorganization there must be full discussion with incumbents, with parochial church councils, and with patrons. When a scheme is prepared objections may be lodged by all these interests and also, if desired, by any local or planning authority—that is to say, the civil side can come in if it so desires. If, after due negotiation, the objections are not resolved, there is an appeal to a special tribunal set up, one in each province. The decision of that tribunal is final. That is not to be quarrelled with, since
  60
  you must get finality somewhere, but it still remains to say that the scheme as thus finally approved has to lie on the Table of the two Houses of Parliament for twenty-eight days when once more, if necessary, a final objection can be raised. The Ecclesiastical Committee in its Report calls particular attention to one special way in which existing rights are disturbed. In the process of making these rearrangements you may find a group of four parishes and decide they must be replaced by three parishes better arranged. If one of these parishes happens to be vacant, the three surviving incumbents can go into the three parishes; but supposing there are four incumbents, one is left over, one is, to put it shortly, superfluous, and therefore loses his incumbency.
  What is to happen in such a situation? Quite obviously such a man must be fairly and equitably compensated for the loss of the benefice which he previously held. The Measure directs that every such dispossessed incumbent shall receive fair and equitable compensation. In presenting his own claim, he may be represented by a best friend, and if he is finally not satisfied he can appeal again to the special tribunal. Those responsible for the Measure are satisfied that in this way fair treatment and fair compensation will be secured. The point was specially brought to the notice again and again of the House of Clergy in the Church Assembly. They may be trusted to watch the interests of their own order, and on each occasion they accepted this proposal as properly meeting the needs of the situation. The Ecclesiastical Committee also endorsed that opinion that proper provision is made for that particular case, but it is right that your Lordships should have it in mind. It is the kind of thing one would not wish to happen, but it may have to happen, and we do wish it to be dealt with properly and fairly.
  There I think we can leave the Measure. It is full of interest in its fifty-seven clauses for those who like to study it. Its purpose really to re-start parochial life as efficiently as possible and as soon as possible in these dislocated areas. It is an unprecedented Measure, and so are the conditions. The Church has, if I may say so, shown great courage and great foresight in tackling this problem boldly and definitely, and so armed itself beforehand to be ready to act the moment the opportunity arises.

  61
  In our lighter moments we even think we are showing the way to the State, pointing the way they might go with equal courage and foresight in dealing with the much greater problems which face them. Five times in al the Church Assembly has debated the principles of this Measure and in every case has endorsed them. Its revision stage was long and thorough, and final approval was given to the Measure by what the most reverend Primate described as "quite an enormous majority." The Ecclesiastical Committee described it as urgently needed and expedient, and I submit it to your Lordships with every confidence that you will accept it.
  Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganization Areas Measure, 1944, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, I make no apology for a few very brief remarks on the subject which the right reverend Prelate has just dealt with towards the end—the special paragraph in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I yield to none in this House in my admiration—I do not think it is too strong a term—for this Measure and my sincere hope that there will be no difficulty raised whatever in passing this Resolution. What I am anxious about is this. The Ecclesiastical Committee found them selves in a position of some considerable difficulty in making what could be regarded as a thoroughly favourable Report. It was on account of a comparatively small matter, but a matter which is definitely one of their duties under the Act constituting the Assembly and giving it its powers. The Act provides that the Ecclesiastical Committee have to draft a report stating the nature and legal effect of the Measure and their views as to the expediency thereof, especially in relation to "the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects." These are the important words to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention, and which I hope will be borne in mind by the Church Assembly in future. In this case it did appear to a great many members of the Committee that certain constitutional rights were affected and that there was not that provision which Parliament probably would
  62
  have put in for compensation for the loss of these rights.
  I am not going into the matter in any detail, but it depends on the question of the right of an incumbent to a life interest in the income of the endowments of the benefice. It does not seem clear from the Measure, and certainly looks anything but clear from the debates which took place in the Assembly, whether the incumbent in such a case, if dispossessed, is going to get as compensation the full value of that life interest which is taken from him. Many people have asked, without getting a satisfactory answer, "What is the meaning of constitutional rights?" It is perhaps rather like the old story of the elephant: "I cannot tell you what an elephant is." I cannot tell you what is a constitutional right, but I think I can recognize one when I see it. I suggest that "the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects," at any rate, include the sort of rights which we all consider have been secured in this country by Magna Charta and in the United States of America by the Declaration of Independence. They are those rights which are claimed for the subjects of all free nations by the Atlantic Charter, and indeed are those rights for which we are fighting in this war.
  In these circumstances it becomes, to my mind, more important at the present time that we should see that nothing is allowed to pass which is inconsistent with the preservation of what is described, for want of a better phrase, as the "constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects." The matter is really a technical point because there are very few who are concerned, or likely to be concerned. I do not propose to go into the argument whether the fair and equitable compensation, and the machinery arranged for obtaining it, is, or is not, sufficient. Having in view their anxiety not to interfere with the passage of the Measure into law, the Committee came to the conclusion (I think as a matter of what was likely to happen rather than as a matter of legal certainty) that there was not very much danger of any dispossessed incumbent suffering very much if at all under this. At the same time that technical point remained and the Committee felt bound to do as they have done—namely, call attention to it.

  63
  There are two things I want to say about that. The first is that this is not the first Measure from the Church Assembly which has aroused a certain amount of opposition in Parliament on account of some small incidental point, and I do hope that in the future, in its own interests and in the interests of the Church, the Church Assembly will watch very carefully what is likely to be the reaction of at any rate a good many members in the two Houses on certain points which may occur in a Measure. For instance, it would have done away with a certain risk to this Measure (which I think has been overcome) if this matter had been a little more carefully considered, and considered from the point of the difficulty which the Ecclesiastical Committee had in getting over those particular points.
  The only other thing I want to say about it is in regard to the real importance at the present time of watching these questions, which just before the war some members of both Houses of Parliament were inclined to treat as trifling. We now see—I suggest we do see in this case—that there is often a very important principle behind some of these questions of what are generally considered to be the constitutional rights of some of His Majesty's subjects. Those rights are indeed the real issue in this war. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not think I have been wasting the time of the House by drawing attention to this particular point. I would go so far as to suggest that in all cases of this kind the National Assembly, or their Legislative Committee, which I suppose would be the proper body, should communicate with certain members of both Houses of Parliament in regard to a Measure before it comes up to Parliament, with a view of ascertaining whether there is any point of this kind on which difficulty is likely to be felt in either House. That I think would facilitate the passage of their Measures and would make the working together of Parliament and the Church Assembly very much more satisfactory than it has sometimes been in the past.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I think a third speech upon a Measure of the Church Assembly which is going to be accepted in a few minutes is creating a precedent in your Lordships' House which perhaps is not very desirable, but I should like to say a word or two on the subject both as
  64
  a member of the Church Assembly and as a member, like my noble friend Lord Hemingford, of the Ecclesiastical Committee. There are two points that I should like to mention. This is not the only method of compensating dispossessed clergy but it was by far the most popular with the persons chiefly concerned, the clergy themselves. The protagonists who fought the other case on the Ecclesiastical Committee were led in both cases by the same person, my noble relative Lord Quickswood, and the difference between his success in the two was that he received far less support from the clergy in the Church Assembly than he did from some friends in the Ecclesiastical Committee.
  I should like to say that it is constantly in the minds of those who work in the Church Assembly to maintain the best possible liaison between that body and the House of Commons and your Lordships' House. The late Lord Selborne introduced a new Measure about six years ago for that very purpose. It gave the House of Laity in the Church Assembly power to co-opt members who were not elected from any other source, and there are certainly two members of your Lordships' House who are co-opted. No later than last year I had the privilege of moving in the Standing Committee of the House of Laity that Mr. Willink and Mr. Henry Brooke, both distinguished Members of the House of Commons, should be co-opted for that very purpose. Unfortunately from that point of view the Government have since then taken possession of Mr. Willink and promoted him to a higher sphere, and he can no longer speak for us. But we have that matter very much in mind and it is more the difficulty of finding people who can spare the time than any absence of will on the part of the Assembly in this matter that stands in the way. But of course there is constant consultation between representatives of the Church Assembly and every Government Department that is concerned in any Measure that comes forward for consideration and the Government draftsman is also frequently consulted. I should like to assure Lord Hemingford that there is a really live effort to keep co-operation as close as possible.
  The only thing I would like to say about the Ecclesiastical Committee is this. I think Lord Hemingford goes a little far when he says the Committee had

  65
  a difficulty in finding a way of giving a favourable decision for this Measure. I think the Committee were really very much reassured by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clauson, who, speaking with all his great experience and after having made a careful examination of this particular point, said he was satisfied it was a full and fair measure of compensation that was offered. If it had not been for Lord Clauson's assurance perhaps there would have been further examination, but he did reassure us on that point, and I do not think there was any difficulty in the minds of the majority of the Ecclesiastical Committee in making the Report that has been presented to your Lordships' House.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to add one word because naturally those of us who sit on these Benches are eager to avoid any suggestion that the rights of the clergy are being in any way overlooked. The particular problem that arose in this case was whether we should say that every dispossessed incumbent was to receive the full value of the benefice; but is this its value as it was when he was instituted to it, when there was a large income, or the value of the benefice at the moment of his dispossession, when it might totally have disappeared? In a great many of these cases the value of the benefice comes from the rent of property built on the glebe and because that has disappeared some of the best endowed benefices in the city of London are now providing no income for the incumbent at all. What he is dispossessed of, therefore, is a claim which cannot be met. It was necessary, therefore, to establish some form of equitable treatment for these men. It seemed more convenient and proper that all these cases should be met on a basis of equity rather than on a figure which depended to some extent on the action of the enemy which we cannot at present predict. That is the reason why we took this line rather than the line that a man is entitled to compensation to the full extent. It is no good saying that a man is legally entitled to a certain thing if that means that he will not have money to enable him to live.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has drawn attention to this point because it
  66
  is an important point. We have always had in mind that we must have regard to the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects. When we approached this matter and in the course of the discussion upon it we did keep in touch with legal opinion and the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clauson, assured me personally that full constitutional rights were preserved in the Measure, especially by the final appeal to the Houses of Parliament, convinced me that we were not proceeding on false lines. This point was considered at every stage with very great care. We could not have been more careful if we had tried on this particular point. We tried every kind of formula and we found it impossible to produce one which would operate justly in every case. The most reverend Primate has just called attention to the fact that it is no use to say to a clergyman that his constitutional rights in his benefice shall he preserved if his benefice has lost its value. Throughout the discussions in the Church Assembly it was evident that this matter could not be dealt with by formula or arithmetical calculation but only by reasonable men trying to meet the situation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SMALL-SCALE FOOD PRODUCTION.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they can furnish any estimate of the proportion of total home-grown food now represented by the produce of small holdings, gardens, and allotments and other areas of small-scale food production in Great Britain; what is roughly the percentage increase of their food output since the commencement of the present war; and how does it compare with similar small-scale production in the last war.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate that the subject of his question is one on which only approximate estimates can be given, since the class of

  67
  production which he has in mind is derived partly from land outside the scope of the agricultural returns. No estimate has been made of the production from small holdings over one acre in size. My reply, therefore, is concerned only with production from holdings of one acre or under, including gardens, allotments, and plots cultivated by the Services, etc. It is estimated that this class of land now contributes some 10 per cent. of the total tonnage of home-produced food; the percentage increase which has taken place during the war is estimated to be not far short of 50 per cent. Production from this type of land in the last war was on a similar scale, but the information in regard to that period is insufficient for any close comparison to be made.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1944.
  Report from the India and Burma Orders Committee, That they have examined the Draft Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned.