Lords Sitting of 30 January 1945

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Resolution standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That, in the event of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill being received from the Commons, Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) 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.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2).
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

NEWFOUNDLAND
2.23 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask a question of which I have given private notice. It is to ask His Majesty's Government when they expect to be in a position
764
to make a further statement with regard to Newfoundland.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil):My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, asked me a similar question in the autumn, I said that I hoped to make a further statement about Newfoundland in the near future. At that time it was generally expected that the war with Germany might come to an end at an earlier date than now seems probable, and that we might he in a position not only to establish but to set in motion machinery during 1945 to enable Newfoundlanders to examine the future of the island and to express their considered views as to the form of government they desire having regard to the island's financial and economic condition. The delay in achieving victory in Europe has unhappily affected the position adversely in two ways. First it must inevitably postpone the setting in motion of the machinery for deciding the constitutional future of the island, for that must await the end of the war in Germany; and secondly it equally precludes any immediate attempt to forecast the economic prospects of the island after the war. In view of this new situation, which His Majesty's Government deeply regret, it is clearly necessary to readjust our time-table.
I have always contemplated that the further statement which I had promised to make to Parliament must be a balanced one, that is to say that it should not be confined to matters of machinery but should deal broadly with reconstruction needs, and afford at least a starting point from which Newfoundlanders might be able to arrive at some assessment of their economic prospects in the immediate post-war period. It has been the clearly expressed view of Parliament here, and is I think generally recognized in Newfoundland, that when the Newfoundland people come to pronounce on the constitutional future, much must depend on the degree of confidence with which they will be able to count on the island continuing to be self-supporting in normal peace-time conditions. It would be unfair to expect them to come to a decision on the constitutional issue without full discussion of how they are likely to stand, financially and economically, when present war-time activities cease. Indeed, a clear understanding of their

765
economic future must be, quite evidently, an essential factor in any decisions or discussions by Newfoundlanders as to their constitutional future. But many of the factors of which account will have to be taken by them in reaching any economic or financial assessment of the island's future are still speculative and hypothetical.
I have therefore come to the conclusion that the wiser course would be to recognize the realities of the war situation and to defer the production of detailed proposals until later in the year, when the situation should be clearer. I shall in any case aim at making a statement in good time before the moment comes for the setting up of machinery to enable Newfoundlanders to examine these questions for themselves. Much as His Majesty's Government regret this inevitable postponement, I need hardly say that it will not interfere in the slightest degree with the progress of the Newfoundland Government's reconstruction plans for the immediate postwar period. These are now in an advanced stage and they will go forward in the normal way. The Newfoundland Government have ample funds for financing any schemes with which progress is likely to be possible in the near future. And there will be no question of any such schemes being held up while the Newfoundland people are coming to a decision on the constitutional issue. Indeed, a start has already been made with some schemes, notably those relating to fisheries development, and others are ready to be put into operation as soon as war conditions allow. Nor, of course, will the postponement of His Majesty's Government's detailed statement in any way affect their determination to proceed as early as circumstances permit with the constitutional policy they have already announced.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I cannot conceal that I am keenly disappointed that after so long an interval there is so little tangible result contained in the Minister's answer. I can only ask that we might have an assurance—I am sure it would be appreciated in Newfoundland—that no time will be lost in implementing a scheme as soon as practicable.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am as disappointed as he is. I had greatly
766
looked forward to making a further statement and I can certainly give an assurance to him that the object of His Majesty's Government is to proceed with these plans as soon as circumstances permit.

INDIA (ESTATE DUTY) BILL [H.L.]
2.29 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to enable the Government of India and the Provincial Governments to levy Estate Duty on property passing at death. The strain of war upon India has made it more essential than ever before for the Central Government to be in a position to add Death Duties to existing methods of taxation. By mopping up purchasing power that might otherwise be used to buy consumer goods, such a tax would put a brake on the rising price level in India and thereby serve as a valuable weapon against the constant danger of inflation. Adequate powers of taxation to counteract inflationary tendencies are indispensible to the fiscal equipment of the Central Government. But the new taxation will not only serve the negative and immediate purpose of tethering prices: the proceeds of Estate Duties will provide a fund to assist the Provinces with their plans for post-war economic development. As your Lordships are aware, we are hoping that big schemes of irrigation and industrial development will be launched in British India as soon as may be practicable after the war, and that they will be important features of an All-Indian reconstruction programme that will rapidly improve the general standard of living.
The Government of India were naturally anxious to proceed if possible by means of the powers already conferred upon them by the Act of 1935. Estate Duties are not expressly mentioned in the list of federal powers contained in the Act, which only provides for the imposition of Succession Duties. The Viceroy referred to the Federal Court the vital question as to whether a Succession Duty could be construed in law as including a duty levied on a whole estate, and the Court

767
decided by a majority opinion that the power to levy Estate Duty was not implied in this provision of the Act. There was thus no alternative for the Government of India to a request to Parliament here for fresh legislation to meet this urgent requirement. The present Bill seeks to close the inadvertent gap left by both Houses in 1935–because it certainly was not their intention that the Government of India should be unable to levy Death Duties—by providing specifically for the levy of Estate Duties, and the distribution of their proceeds among the Provinces. The Government of India would like to introduce a Bill imposing the new Duties not later than March of this year, as otherwise there will be a year's delay in the collection of the tax. I therefore hope that this measure will have a speedy passage into law.
I will, if I may, just draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1, subsection (1), of the Bill inserts in the Federal Legislative List, in the list of federal powers, the new power to levy Estate Duty on property other than agricultural land, and a complementary power in respect of agricultural land to the Provincial Legislative List. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 adds Estate Duties to the list of federal taxes that must be distributed to the Provinces. These subsections contain the marrow of the Bill. I have confined myself in these few remarks to an explanation of the broad principles of the Bill, but if any of your Lordships would care to raise any matter to which I have not alluded, or to ask any question relating to the Bill, I shall be more than glad to answer to the best of my ability. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel).
2.34 P.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Addison, I have the pleasant duty, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, of offering our thanks to His Majesty's Government and to my noble friend opposite for this Bill. Obviously it closes a gap which was left inadvertently in the Government of India Act, and it will give powers to the Provincial and Federal Governments of India which they require. I gave notice to the noble Earl that I
768
was going to ask two questions. They are, as I understand them, more of a domestic nature, and they really lie within the province rather of the Governments concerned in India. Nevertheless I think that it is worth while to ask them. First of all, however, I would say that we welcome this Bill because we hope that it will do something to bring back into the general coffers of India some part of the very large war fortunes which have been made in India during the present war. Fiscal conditions in India have been very different from those which have obtained in this country. They have in fact been rather more like the conditions prevailing in this country in the first world war, and enormous fortunes have been accumulated.
Now as to the two questions which I have to ask. I presume that these taxes are scaled up, that there will be a certain limit, and that the small estates will not be mulcted. That is, of course, a general practice and I take it that it will be followed. The second question relates to the exemption of the estates of soldiers and sailors killed in the war. I presume that the general practice followed in this country will be followed in India in the case of the estates of Indian soldiers and sailors also. There is another matter which I did not mention beforehand to my noble friend. I presume also that levies on agricultural estates will be such as not to displace cultivators. If the levy is too heavy on land passing on death, the successor who may represent a family which has been for many generations on the land may have to sell out. That I think would be a pity on practical grounds. I have always been opposed to Death Duties, not on principle, but because of the way in which various Chancellors of the Exchequer have used them. They are levied on capital, and they have been used to meet current expenditure. That is, in effect, living on capital, and we see the results to-day. I hope that the Government of India will learn from our bad example and our bad experience, and will use the proceeds of these Estate Duties for capital purposes in India on which such expenditure is certainly desirable. Having mentioned these points I would only add on behalf of my noble friends that otherwise we are very pleased to support this important little Bill.
3.37 P.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, speaking for his colleagues, for the support which he has given to this measure, and for the assistance which he has provided for the speedy passage of the Bill into law. The terms of the Bill that will be introduced into the Central Legislature in India when the Government of India are in a position to exercise this power are, of course, a matter 'or the Government of India to decide. But I can assure my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that the specific points which he mentioned will be referred by me to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that he will pass them on to the Government of India. I repeat that I am grateful to my noble friend and his colleagues for their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

LIMITATION (ENEMIES AND WAR PRISONERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
NURSES BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Bill which I present to your Lordships for Second Reading to-day is far from simple to understand, but the broad outlines of the measure will, I believe, receive the support of noble Lords. The Bill has three main objects. The first is to extend the local government franchise to cover every one in this country who possesses a Parliamentary vote; the second is to enable local elections to be resumed on certain
770
dates throughout England, Wales and Scotland; and the third is to provide for the publication of registers of electors on certain fixed dates. The House will therefore observe that the Bill is not primarily one dealing with another place or solely with machinery for use in the event of a General Election. In the sphere of local government it might perhaps be described as a further step on the path to full and complete democracy, and it should ultimately have influence upon the administration—perhaps I ought to say the better administration—of local affairs. In the sphere of central government it makes provision of a temporary nature with regard to registration, voting by post and other miscellaneous objects, all of which concern another place.
Here let me say that although I have stood at a local election on two occasions I have never stood, nor been able to stand, for a Parliamentary constituency, nor indeed have I ever been eligible to record a vote at a General Election, and therefore my knowledge of the workings of elections, and indeed to a certain extent of the workings of another place, is, I fear, very slender. In fact, I feel in some ways like the German professor lecturing on anatomy who is supposed to have said to his class: "Gentlemen, I now come to the spleen. About the functions of the spleen I know nothing. So much for the spleen." Nevertheless, I shall endeavour in the course of my remarks to explain those last three parts of the Bill, which, as I say, deal primarily with another place.
I think it would be true to say that since the Reform Act of 1832 this House has been more or less a willing partner in every measure of electoral reform, although mighty changes have occurred in our policy which have not always been carried through without a stern and even at times a bitter struggle. I think, however, that we can afford to leave those distant days to historians, for there cannot really be enemies of reform among us now. If Parliamentary and local government bodies are to be healthy and vigorous, the great mass of the people should, and indeed must, possess full powers and facilities for recording their votes. Indeed, that seems to me to be one of the bases upon which all democratic government must flourish. In the first clause of the

771
measure, therefore, we propose to extend the local government franchise to all men and women who possess the Parliamentary vote. This will add something like 7,000,000 electors to the register, and is in accord with the unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. We have, however, considered that it would not be right to deprive any person of the local government vote for an area in respect of which he is a ratepayer. Accordingly, provision is made that any person who is paying rates in respect of a property which does not entitle him to a Parliamentary vote shall be enabled to claim the local government vote for the area concerned. That is dealt with in Clause 15 (2) of the Bill. In Clause 2 we give effect to another recommendation of the Speaker's Conference by retaining the business premises qualification for the Parliamentary franchise, but abolishing the spouse's qualification, and in consequence the spouse's qualification must also be abolished in the local government area as well.
Clause 3 is of some importance to members of the Forces and to a small number of war workers who are now serving abroad. Officers who hold war-time Commissions in the Indian or Burmese Forces, and officers of the Indian Army Reserve of Officers who, apart from their war service, would be dwelling in this country, are to qualify for registration. Other ranks serving in the Indian and Burmese Forces are already qualified under the Act of 1943, and therefore do not come into account in this clause. In addition, there is a small number of members of the Forces who, I am informed, have been discharged abroad and have taken up civilian work without returning to the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) of this clause contains provisions for the making of applications by such persons for inclusion within the Service register.
I pass now to Part II of the Bill, which deals with the resumption of local elections. The nine clauses contained in this Part are probably the most complicated in the Bill. The Government are anxious—and we feel sure that the House will agree with us in our view—that local elections of all kinds should be resumed at the earliest possible date. Clause 4 deals with members of those councils who normally all retire together every third year. It provides that in those cases the period
772
between the last ordinary election and the dates which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) shall be treated as a period of three years, with the consequent requirement that elections of councillors to come into office on the dates mentioned in that subsection will require to be held under the procedure of the appropriate Act, which, as the House knows, is the Local Government Act of 1933. The procedure for the retirement and consequent election of aldermen is to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 4. The first half of the aldermen who are due to retire will do so at times which are set out in subsection (1), and the second half will automatically retire three years later.
The next clause, Clause 5, into which I need not delve deeply, sets out the procedure to be followed in those cases where one-third of the council retire every year. It provides that all co-opted councillors shall retire on the date when elections are resumed, together with those councillors elected in 1936 in the case of boroughs and in 1937 in the case of district councils. In subsequent years one-third of those councillors will retire automatically, and that one-third will be those longest in office, and in the case of councillors who have equal terms of office, the councillor elected on the smaller number of votes will go out before the councillor elected on the larger number of votes. There are parallel provisions to be found in Clauses 9 and 10 which deal with Scotland. Triennial elections will be resumed in December of this year. Elections for town councillors where retirement is normally by annual thirds will be resumed in November, according to the same general procedure as is proposed in the case of England and Wales.
Under Part III of the Bill a register of Parliamentary electors is to be published on May 7 with reference to the qualifying date of January 31 and it will become the May, 1945, register. This is a special register for this year only, and it is required because the existing printing positon would not at all easily permit of the production of an ad hoc register for a General Election if required this year under the Act which your Lordships passed last year. This May, 1945, register will remain effective until the publication of a register which will come into operation on October 15 annually, with reference to the quailfying

773
date of June 30. This annual register, as I understand it, will serve two purposes: it will be effective in respect of Parliamentary Elections initiated between October 1 and December 31 of the year of its publication, and it will be used for local elections throughout the whole period of the twelve months that it remains in force. That register is known as the annual register. In 1946 and subsequent years Parliamentary Elections initiated between January 1 and September 9 will be held on a register compiled ad hoc under the 1943 Act. References to that may be found in Clauses 13, 14 and 15 of the Bill.
The fourth and the last Part of the Bill to which I need draw your Lordships attention gives effect to the recommendation of a conference presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whereby serving voters will be enabled, if serving in certain parts of the world, to record their votes by post at a General Election. This will result in a delay of nineteen days after polling day before the counting of votes can begin, but the Government feel that your Lordships will not object to this procedure in the unusual circumstances which will probably exist at the time when the next General Election is held. Finally, I would inform the House that we should like this Bill as early as possible, so that the provisions relating to the publication of the May register can be expedited; and, subject to the agreement of your Lordships, I would ask that the Committee stage of the Bill should be taken to-day week, and that we may pass the Bill through its remaining stages to-morrow week. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Eari of Munster.)
2.55 P.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, may I be permitted to address a word of congratulation to the noble Earl who has introduced this very difficult Bill in such lucid terms? I think I am entitled to say that because, unlike him, I have spent over a quarter of a century in municipal government, both county and local, besides the time I spent in another place, and I find myself now classified as a voter among a certain category which out of deference
774
to us all I will not mention. There are one or two points, however, to which I want to call attention. I noticed first of all a slight difference between the noble Earl's division of the Bill into three points and that of the Home Secretary. He gave a different third point, although it did not affect his exposition of the Bill. The Home Secretary said the Bill extended the principle of universal suffrage for men and women to local government elections, it provided for the resumption of local elections, and then—a point which the noble Earl did not mention—it further democratized the Parliamentary franchise. It is true that this is another step forward in the general democratic franchise. Instead of taking the full step we like to nibble at things, when we might just as well have done the whole thing at once.
But I think I shall be right in saying that under other circumstances this Bill would have been highly controversial and there would have been a good deal more discussion both in another place and in this, were it not for the manner of its conception and its birth. That arises from the nature of the present Government and the Speaker's Conference, on which I had the honour to serve. Naturally, the decisions arrived at in order to obtain unanimity and so that we might proceed quickly are somewhat in the nature of a compromise. However, the Bill does one thing; it brings another seven million voters on to the register for local government elections. That is a tremendous step forward, and on that point alone I imagine there would have been a good deal of controversy in another place, and probably we may hear some echoes of it in this House to-day. But, after all, it was bound to come, because things have been gradually moving that way,
The old division between ratepayers and those who are said not to pay rates has long since disappeared. Now, with long experience as chairman of an assessment committee in my own borough I realize more and more that landlords have been content that the tenant should pay the rates direct, and numbers of people of humble circumstances and smaller incomes have been paying their rates direct for some considerable time and had their rent correspondingly reduced. That shows that the term has been rather a misnomer when in time past we talked of those

775
people not being ratepayers. That is clear now, and this Bill brings in a large number of voters who ought to have been in all the time. They have certainly earned that reward from the service which they have given during the war and the necessity for considerable alteration in our social and economic conditions, particularly with regard to housing. The other thing is that rates are not based upon the rent paid, and never have been. The old formula laid down is that rates are based on the hypothetical rent to be paid by the hypothetical tenant. That is what all chairmen of assessment committees have had rubbed into them by their valuers. It is on that basis, and not on the basis of the actual rent paid; one cannot take any notice either of what one might call exorbitantly high rents or sympathetically low rents. Rates are based only on the general level of certain properties and the rent they are likely to demand, all being considered on an equal plane.
Another thing one is glad to note is that the elections are going to be resumed, the borough councils elections in November and the county council elections in March. That is a step that has long been overdue, and it will come in time, I hope, for the new planning in connexion with the housing and town planning schemes now in preparation. I hope, too, that it will do something to raise greater interest, in local government matters, because, after all, local government is the basis of all government, and one cannot but deplore the apathy people display when local government elections are being contested. That is the thing that comes most nearly home to them and it should help in many ways both to train potential representatives in the future and also to keep a vigilant eye on the town hall, so as to make it a real centre of municipal life and to ensure better conditions in housing and in our general corporate life.
There is one thing that I would suggest to the noble Earl should be considered before the Committee stage. I now speak for myself—I have not been able to consult my colleagues on this matter—but I think it would be a good method to be adopted generally throughout the country that one-third of the council should retire each year, instead of, as in London, particularly in the Metropolitan
776
boroughs, the whole council going out in the third year. In the provinces a third go out each year. That, I think, makes for continuity and keeps a certain amount of experience always in the council, which is very valuable. It also, I believe, keeps the electors keener and more alert. I would very much like that point to be considered. It is not a matter of very great difficulty. At the first election it would be well if all retire, but I should think it could be laid down that after that one-third of the members should retire each year.
I notice that there has been a good deal of criticism, and I thought unfair criticism, with regard to the aldermen in the boroughs. The Bill, however, is quite right with regard to that matter, and when we consider the position in municipal life which the Home Secretary occupies we can quite understand that he would look after that side of the legislation. I speak as one who, so far as the borough council is concerned, is in exactly the same position. One critic in another place said that aldermen never come before the electors. That is not accurate, because many of them are chosen from elected people, and others are also elected in their place. Apart altogether from that, however, it is a very valuable thing, as the Home Secretary indicated in his speech with regard to his own experience "over the Bridge," to be able to go outside and co-opt a certain amount of ability and experience which a council has not got among its members and which will then be used for the public service.
I became an alderman not because I wanted to be an alderman but because I was told next morning that I was an alderman. I was made an alderman because there was a certain job coming along which had to be done—namely, the quinquennial valuation—for which the council probably had not got many members who could give the time or at least whose time could be adapted to the job. So I found myself faced with a job, which would take four months, to consider some seven thousand objections that had been lodged with regard to assessments. I think that as long as that system is not carried to any absurd length, it does justify the position of aldermen. There are quite numbers of people—we have all met them—who are very able to give advice, leadership and counsel but who, for

777
many reasons, cannot face the hustings and run the gamut of ordinary elections. These people may be of very great service if they are invited to serve the community in that way. I admit that that does not apply in all cases but it does in a great many.
There are two things which one rather regrets, but out of loyalty one cannot oppose them as they were more or less agreements at the Speaker's Conference. Some of us would have liked to see some different legislation with regard both to the business vote and university vote. However, we have made partial steps in regard to one of them at least, and may make longer strides with regard to the other. I think, too, there might be some reconsideration as to the length of time between Parliaments at a General Election. Eight weeks seems to me a very long while to have a break. I think there may even be something in the point raised by one honourable member in another place—that it might be done by Proclamation and the old Parliament remain in being until the new Parliament is elected. On that matter I am not disposed to press too strongly, but I think it should be possible to have a shorter interval during which the country is without an elected Parliament. Subject to those observations, I, for one, give the Bill a very cordial welcome, and I know that in that regard I can speak on behalf of my colleagues, too. I trust the measure may be carried into law as soon as possible.
3.8 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken in congratulating the noble Earl who introduced the Bill on the manner in which he did it. He told us lie had never stood for Parliament, but he has now been for six years a member of what is described as "across the Bridge" by my noble friend who spoke last—the County Council. My noble friend did extremely well there, and I am very proud of him, because it was through my help that he got on the County Council and laid the foundations of his skill and ability on the Government Bench.
This Bill, luckily owing to the fact that the Speaker's Conference decided so many of these questions, is not a matter of any great controversy at the moment. The noble Lord who spoke last said it was the
778
thin end of the wedge for greater democracy. I suppose he was referring to the business vote. I remember very well that in this House—I do not know whether you would call it a privilege, but at all events I took the opportunity to put down a Motion and was successful in opposing a Bill brought in by the Labour Government to do away not only with the university vote but with the business vote as well. I am sorry to say that on this side of the House some members wished to retain the university representation but wanted to do away with the business vote. They were a very small minority, however, and the Bill was rejected by a big majority. There is one aspect of this business vote—that as regards the spouse—which may be regretted by some people, but I believe it was perfectly accidental that the spouses were ever brought in. It is because, I believe, "man" includes "woman." Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will agree with me, or will correct me if I am wrong—if he takes the trouble. That is the reason why the spouses got the vote.
I should like to refer to one point about the business vote. It will be rather difficult for some business people who now must apply to be put on the register instead of being put on it by the local authorities. I hope due publication will be given by the proper authority calling the attention of those who have business votes to the fact that they must take proper steps to ensure that they get on the register. That is a very important matter. People are very slack about these things. They are not electoral agents and some of them are not very much in touch with Party organizations. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will assure us that steps will be taken by the Home Office to call attention to this matter.
The noble Lord opposite raised a question about aldermen. I quite agree with him that it is a good thing to retain aldermen. As he rightly observed, nearly all of them have gone through an election at some time or other and they have become aldermen by promotion, having been elevated from the ranks of councillors to the aldermanic bench. On the other hand I do not agree with the noble Lord about triennial elections. He referred to the fact that he has been twenty-six years engaged in local government affairs. I can claim to have been engaged in them

779
for a longer period. I think I have been over forty years in local government and I served on the vestries before the Act turned vestries into borough councils. My experience was that hardly anybody voted then. You got most ridiculous figures at annual elections—8 per cent. or o per cent. of the voters. Now the percentage is not much to become enthusiastic about, but we do manage to get 35 to 40 per cent. of the electors to vote.
I think it would be much better if councils all over the country followed London instead of London reverting to the country system. I believe you would get much more interest taken in elections in the country if you did not have annual elections. People get thoroughly bored with annual elections. Moreover, when members are elected for three years you get a certain continuity of policy and you get old and experienced members. There is one thing about London that I have always regretted, and that is that a London elector, unless he belongs to a particular borough, cannot become an alderman of that borough. I think it would be a great improvement if a Local Government Bill was passed making it possible for any London elector to be made an alderman of any London borough. In many parts of London you have men of experience and leisure who are willing to devote time to this work, whereas in certain working-class districts it is very difficult to find men of leisure willing to undertake this work, or, if they are willing, they cannot afford the time to attend to local affairs.
One other point which I personally greatly regret is that the Government have not seen their way to alter the date for the publication of the register from October 15 to October 1. I brought in a Bill which had a rather high sounding title into your Lordships' House some years ago. It was called the Representation of the People (Registration) Bill. I introduced this Bill because there was common agreement between my Party and the Labour Party that a measure of that kind would be very useful. Mr. Morrison was strongly in favour of it and a Standing Joint Committee of the Borough Councils also were in favour of it. A conference was held at the Home Office of officials and all the agents in the country and it was agreed that it would
780
be in the interests of everybody that the date should be changed to October 1. The reason for that was that if the register came out on that date it would give people more time to know who was on the register and who was not and it would also give time for canvassing and other electoral purposes. The Bill did not pass through your Lordships' House because the Government opposed it, chiefly on the ground of the immense difficulty in regard to the contract for printing, which would have to be made by the Stationery Office, and of reasons connected with Scotland.
I suggest that the Government might accept an amendment to this Bill allowing October 15 to stand as the date for the year 1945 because it would create enormous difficulties if a change was made now, but that after 1945 the date should be changed to October 1. Everybody I know is in favour of this and I was rather astonished that the learned Solicitor-General in another place said he had had no notice of the matter. This question has been discussed for years and I sincerely trust the Government will now accept an Amendment on the lines I have suggested. I remember the time when the Home Secretary did not occupy the elevated position he does to-day, when he was very strongly in favour of this change, and I believe the noble Lord opposite agrees that such a change is desirable.
LORD AMMON: I meant to make that point but omitted to do so, and I am glad the noble Lord has made it.
LORD JESSEL: I am very glad that what I have said has been endorsed by the noble Lord. This is not a political matter and I think it would be of advantage to everybody if such a change could be made. The late Lord Snell said on a recent occasion when this matter was brought up in this House that he agreed such a change should be made.
The only other point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention occurs in Clause 5. This clause lays it down that members who have been co-opted shall retire in 1945. Many friends of mine who are interested in this matter want to know how this matter will be decided. Will it be by reference to the Local Government Act of 1933? Will these cases of retirement be governed by Section 67 of the 1933 Act or by Section 68?

781
There seems to be a difference of opinion on this but no doubt in the Committee stage the Government representative will give the considered opinion of the Home Office on this matter. It may seem a small matter but it is important in the case of people who have been co-opted to fill casual vacancies during the period when no elections have been held. On the whole I think we can be quite satisfied that this Bill should pass. I think that although the decisions of the Speaker's Conference take away something from some people and have not pleased everybody, yet on the whole they have been welcomed by all as very fair and very sound. The Government are to be congratulated on the way they have handled this matter and, subject to the suggestions I have made, I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I desire to ask the indulgence of your Lordships while again I direct attention to what I conceive to be a very important matter in securing representation of the people through elections though it is not dealt with in this Bill. It would be idle to take up time in pointing out that originally when members of a clan or tribe were asked to engage in various enterprises they had to be unanimous. One man who stuck out against action which it was proposed to take was successful in preventing that action being taken. Centuries ago, as has been pointed out in a recent book, it was provided that the will of the majority should prevail and democracy is based upon the assumption that the majority rule, not the minority. That is the fundamental basis of democracy as I read the history of it. It was intended that the minority should accept the rule of the majority as the will of all and act accordingly. In the later development of our modern civilization candidates representing various phases of human thought have appeared in almost all constituencies. Sometimes you have three candidates and indeed in some parts of the Empire it is not unusual to have five or six candidates. It follows as matters now stand that the candidate who polls the largest number of votes is declared elected regardless of whether or not he represents the majority of the voters. He may in fact have only a minority of all the votes. That means, in other words, that instead of having a democratic institution
782
we have an institution in which the will of the minority governs rather than the will of the majority.
I submit that that should be remedied, that it can be remedied, and remedied as has been done in some parts of the British Empire, by providing that when several candidates come forward each voter should mark his ballot paper with the figures 1, 2, 3 or 4, as the case may be, against the names of the candidates, indicating his preference for those candidates in the order named. Those in favour of John Jones would mark 1 against his name and 2 against Peter Smith, while others would mark Peter Smith 1 and Brown 2, and so on. When the votes are counted all the 1's for each candidate are put aside, and then if you take those who indicated that the man with a large number of 1's was their second choice and put them together, you know that the man declared elected represents a majority of the people of the constituency. This has been worked satisfactorily in more than one part of the British Commonwealth, and it has been entirely satisfactory because by that process you make certain that the representative who sits in Parliament is there representing the majority of the people of the constituency.
In this country, at this time, when control is to be exercised so much and Parliament deals with problems of control, is it right that minorities should determine control? That is what will happen unless some provision is made whereby the returned representative of the people is a representative of the majority of the electors. I submit that we have now reached the point when it is very important that this matter should be dealt with, for not only is it a negation of democracy that a man with a minority of votes should represent a constituency but if it should happen that there was a majority of minority representatives in Parliament the principle upon which we base our government would perish, that is, the principle that the will of the majority should be accepted by the minority as the will of all the people. Some have suggested proportional representation, but proportional representation is a negation of democracy because it ensures representation for minorities. If you had a constituency with 20,000 electors and five candidates, 4,001 votes would elect a candidate—4,001 out of

783
20,000. That is not democracy but its very negation. It ensures the election of those who represent minority interests, which again I say with all deference is the exact opposite of the principles upon which Parliamentary institutions are founded. The history of our institutions is the history of the majority rule, and whenever minority interests are able to enforce their will on the majority you will have difficulties of the first order, difficulties which will increase as the number of candidates increases.
If the man who secures the most votes is declared elected he is, unless he has a majority of all the votes cast, only a minority representative. I know it is not very popular with political Parties at times that you should discuss the possibility of every member being representative of the majority of voters, but nevertheless the principle I submit is so sound that it cannot be lightly disregarded. We have got along on the theory that there will be two candidates. Now we frequently have many candidates and I submit that we must take steps to provide adequate machinery—it is very simple if you adopt the method I have referred to—to ensure that the nation's Parliament is a Parliament that represents the majority of the electors in the constituencies, because, especially having regard to the type of legislation that will be dealt with and must be dealt with, it is of paramount importance that provision should be made for representation of the people through what has been hitherto the guiding principle in connexion with Parliamentary institutions that the majority of the electors should express their will in Parliament and that Parliament is representative of the majority of the electors of the several constituencies. I suggest to the Government that this is a matter worthy of consideration. This method has been tried in other communities with success. It merely involves an opportunity being afforded to the elector to indicate on his ballot paper his first choice and second choice and provision being made that in the possible event of insufficient votes being cast for one man to ensure his having a majority, the votes of those who indicate him as their second choice will be added to the votes which made him first choice and so ensure that the will of the majority of the people is
784
expressed by the members who sit in Parliament.
I had occasion to consider the question of proportional representation. Under that system any candidate who secures one vote more than the number of votes which were cast, divided by the number of candidates, is elected. That in some cases means that a man who secures only 4,000 or 5,000 votes out of a total of 20,000 is elected, perhaps on the first count, because he has secured a number in excess of the quota. In practice this system develops groups. In practice it is the negation of democracy. It makes for combinations of groups to secure the enactment of legislation often opposed to the policy of the Government. Another thing is that it makes for instability of Government, as has been shown in the case of countries where it has been tried. Instead of having a real majority representing the will of the people, you have minorities representing various groups, which in the aggregate are able to create a good deal of difficulty and trouble. The basis of democracy is not that minorities should find representation in Parliament. The fundamental foundation on which democracy rests is that the majority shall rule and that a minority shall accept the will of the majority as being the will of the people. It is for that reason that I suggest that the Government might well consider the question how best to ensure that Parliament, as it will be constituted after the next Election, will represent and reflect the will and mind of the majority of the electors, and not be composed of those who represent but a minority.
3.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, as I anticipated in the speech which I made in moving the Second Reading, your Lordships have not found this measure in any manner controversial. I am surprised therefore to hear my noble friend Viscount Bennett bring up the question whether we should institute—indeed as has been instituted in certain parts of the Empire—the single transferable vote, or the alternative vote, whichever phrase you wish to use, into the Bill at this stage. The Bill brings before Parliament the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and I feel that if we went outside that we should be asking for a considerable amount of trouble from

785
noble Lords who would either support or reject the suggestion of the single transferable vote. In any case it was rejected by the Speaker's Conference—as my noble friend Lord Ammon well knows—by a very large majority. My noble friend will therefore forgive me if I say that I really do not think that to bring a proposal such as he has made into this small Bill would be likely to have any success either in this House or in another place. Nevertheless the noble Viscount's speech was full of interest, and it indicated to your Lordships in some detail how the single transferable vote would function if the system was instituted in this country.
My noble friend Lord Ammon, who stated that he was speaking for himself, thought that certain councillors should retire compulsorily by annual thirds. As the noble Lord is probably aware, county councillors, parish councillors and certain district councillors at the present time retire every three years. That also applies, I believe, to the Metropolitan Councils as well. On other borough councils and certain district councils they retire by annual thirds. This Bill, as I feel sure my noble friend Lord Ammon knows, does not seek to alter the existing law. All it does in the case of retirement by annual thirds is to establish the transitional machinery whereby the procedure which was current before the war can now be resumed. Indeed it is in many cases the established practice of these borough councils and certain district councils to-day. I myself would think that it was not suitable for many reasons to be applied throughout the country, but the County Councils' Association are in favour of the existing law as to the retirement of county councillors, and so far as I am aware no representation has been made by any association for the abolition of either election by annual thirds, or the other way round. Therefore I would suggest that it would be more suitable to leave the Bill as it stands.
I now want to deal with points made by my noble friend Lord Jessel. He drew attention to the fact that anybody who wishes to go on to the business register must apply. That is quite true. In peace time the business premises register was compiled as a result of a canvass undertaken on behalf of the electoral registration officer. This is not possible to-day for reasons which my noble friend
786
will fully understand. Therefore it is intended that anyone who wishes to come on to the business premises register should in fact apply to do so. After this May register is formed applications will be sent to everybody who is on the business register so that they can claim to be included in the October register. Moreover, my right honourable friend is prepared to have a Press announcement made about the May register, and to ask the Minister of Information to impress on the British Broadcasting Corporation the necessity for publishing this as well.
Next I turn to the question which my noble friend raised regarding the publication of a register on October 1 instead of October 15. I understand that October 15 has always been the date of publication of the annual register since the passing of the 1918 Act, and in this respect my noble friend will see that this present Bill merely reverts to the existing law which was in force prior to the passing of the 1943 Act. I think it only right to say that no representations in favour of an earlier date have been received from any local authority associations in England or Scotland on the ground that the publication of the register on October 15 is inconvenient for use at borough council elections, which I believe are held in November.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, it is owing to the fact that the war is going on that these things have not been received. The noble Earl will find that at the Home Office Conference before the war it was agreed by all the political Parties that the date should be changed. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, said he had forgotten to mention it. All the Parties want it and all the agents want it; why it was not represented to the Government I cannot imagine. I suppose it was thought that after the previous representations the matter would be considered by the Speaker's Conference. The Solicitor-General said on behalf of the Government that they would pay attention to the representations and give a decision later.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was only saying that no representations had been received by my right honourable friend from any local authority on the subject.
LORD JESSEL: We do not want it altered in this Bill.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I know you do not, but in a subsequent Bill. There are reasons of substance why it would be very difficult to have this register published compulsorily on October 1 in place of the normal date. So far as Scotland is concerned I understand that, for reasons which I will not delay the House by going into, it is not possible to do it. It would in fact be very difficult to provide in this Bill for any alteration, because it would have to apply not only to this country but also to Scotland. What my right honourable friend is prepared to do is to give administrative instructions that whenever possible registration officers should try to publish the register in future on October 1 if the register is ready by that date. Beyond that I am not prepared to go at the present time, and I repeat that no representations have been made to my right honourable friend on the matter. Indeed, apart from the very short discussion which occurred in another place this is the first time that I have heard this suggestion raised during the discussion on this Bill.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, as a matter of mere privilege I would assure the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that I was detained and only reached your Lordships' House during the course of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, otherwise I would have informed the noble Earl of my intention to make the suggestions which I did.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.
3.45 P.m.
LORD PORTSEA LORD PORTSEA rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make any statement as to the Norman Islands and their responsibilities as to the feeding of the people and generally as to other matters concerning the islands; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there have been considerable changes, a wider horizon and a brighter prospect, perhaps, for the Norman Islands since I last addressed your Lordships. At last we have evidence—and evidence accepted by the Government; that is the important point—brought to us by desperate young men and women who have escaped from the Norman Islands to tell us of the conditions
788
of the people there and especially (and this should touch us most) the condition of the children. We are also said to have the opinion of two gentlemen, neutral subjects, who recently went to the islands and were allowed to visit certain places—presumably certain selected places—and to see some of the people. We are a very honest people—there is no doubt about that—and in this case extremely gullible. It requires all one's gullibility to believe that the islanders, after four years of German rule, with all their knowledge of spies and spying, would confide to two foreigners, two strangers, however well introduced, and open their hearts to them and give them their real opinions and their ideas, and expect to remain in the islands alive. The islander is not easily led, and he is very difficult to drive.
A very prominent statesman said recently that he sometimes wondered whether the war had lasted for a flash or for an age. There can be no doubt as to the duration of the war and the agony of it as it has affected our people in the Norman Islands. They, a free people, a never-conquered people, are now slaves, and slaves by the act of the Government. At least, that is my view. I trust that the Government will not think me too bitter; but if ever a man has a right to be bitter I have that right when I think of the people of these islands. They are starving and, so far as I can make out, very little sympathy is shown them by the Government. In fact, to me the Government's whole attitude in this matter reminds me of a saying of Artemus Ward, whose writings are no doubt familiar to many of your Lordships. Before the burning point of slavery came into the War of Secession, Mr. Ward was asked, "Sir, does not your blood boil when you think of three-and-a-half millions of your fellow citizens clanking their chains in the south?" "Not a bile," said Mr. Ward. "Not a bile. Let 'em clank." That was the Government's view—"Let 'em clank." The Government's view was that the islands could not starve. Did not King Nebuchadnezzar live for a considerable period on grass? Is not the grass in the Norman Islands particularly nutritious and healthy? In this country we can eat as much as we can pay for. "Let 'em clank!"
All this, of course, is old—"as old as Cain, old as the Ten Commandments; as new as yesterday." The evidence is there—the echo of the cries of the children, little children dying slowly in their homes. The echo reaches the Government ear, and it is not music to the Government or to the Government's conscience—for even Governments have consciences. One man has heard and recognized that sound, and he is big enough to admit the original mistake and to wish to correct it. "All great men," said the present Prime Minister's father, "make mistakes," but not all of them, my Lords, are big enough to admit it and to seek to remedy their mistakes. It takes an exceptional man to do that. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have seen in the course of your experience that it does take a big man to admit that he can possibly have made a mistake.
Government sins of omission and commission, action and inaction, have caused the Norman Islands much misery and the lives of many. They have caused slavery and martyrdom. And what has been the cost to this country? Much, and it will cost much in the future. And during that awful period of five years no single word or gesture, of sympathy, of love, of praise, or indeed a single word of any kind, nor a holding out of the hand—nothing from the proper quarter to these poor people, people of our own blood. Their offered money accepted, their sons fighting, they themselves left unarmed and defenceless, the Flag hauled down by Government order by English hands, and all left in the lurch, for the first corner to enslave. Not a word though begged for in this House again and again. Even Hitler sends messages to his garrisons and his people; he sends word when the situation is desperate and he bids his people fight on to the last. Even that message is better than neglect. It is the human touch, and it is a thousand times better than nothing; it shows concern, faith, confidence. We are fighting for the same ideals, the same country, the same Crown and the same faith. Can you estimate the weight or the value of such a word as I am speaking of to our people in captivity and for those 97 young islanders who fought at Dunkirk and were forgotten by the Government in Jersey, to visit which they had been given leave? Now for four years they have been in German
790
concentration camps, and not a single word of any sort or kind has reached them. Poor soldiers, poor people dying on their feet, starved of food, sympathy and human charity, starved body and soul, forgotten, while we here can eat as much as we can pay for, and we boast of our Christmas turkey.
Such things are burnt into one—unforgettable unforgettable even by a dog, the most forgiving of all God's creatures. And the Norman is not a dog, as your Lordships are fully aware in your own persons. But at last, at long last—and that is why I speak of a brighter prospect—the Government decided to ask Germany to permit the Red Cross to send food in parcels into the islands, and food is being sent by that wonderful organization. And what is the food sent? One ship, a small ship, the "Vega," has been selected to carry provisions on a bimonthly service from Lisbon. One ship and one only—no provision in case she should be damaged or sunk, or detained from any other cause; and she was so detained. So they received her cargo of 750 tons—not 7,500 but 750 tons—of food and medicines for 70,000 people for thirty days. Less than thirteen ounces per head per day. But let us be cheerful—I am trying to be cheerful. The "clank" is going out of the chains. Thirteen ounces a day for rejoicing, and the assurance, I trust and believe, of the Government of a regular service till the night is past and the day dawns. I think we have been assured that more and better provision will follow regularly, perhaps in better ships. It would be very good to learn from my noble friend that at least two ships have been found, ships of fair size. As it is, affairs are not very much in advance of my offer of three years ago of a small trawler and a few tons of food. America is loaning fifty ships to France. Can we not ask for one or two? Is not blood thicker than water, as was said at the Peiho Forts and later at Manila when the bread cast upon the waters was found after many days?
Those who have escaped from Jersey and Guernsey say that the position is desperate. No rationing, because there is nothing to ration, no fuel, "no heat when Tiber freezes," and the cold! Although we have coal and oil and wood and electricity and gas here, we know what the cold is. No bread, only the husks that were not thought very much

791
of by the prodigal son; no wood, for the Germans will not allow the trees to be cut for fear of exposing the gun emplacements. Do we not remember the story of the siege of Derry? Are there not many of us who have read the story of Josephus? Do we realize the crime that we are now committing? Are we blind? We must have clean hands before we go into court to try Pétain. Is it that the Government are "too proud" to ask to be permitted to send more food? With a fortnightly ship it means 26 ounces of food per day per head of the population. If we cannot ask that, then let us ask the Americans to help us in the glorious work of saving the innocent. Let New Jersey redeem the balance for Jersey, her god-parent. And let us bind ourselves to her in a common bond for her benefit as well as for ours, for blood is thicker than water. This is a matter of holding on to what is called civilization and freedom—all the freedoms and the hopes of the world.
And this is perhaps a too serious suggestion to make, but I would make it: let wide statesmanship examine the Caribbean plan and its "bargains," the common insurance plan, the islands' interest in the Empire. In this is the germ of a binding and a permanent coming together of interest, of co-operation and maintenance, of friendship, a guarantee of safety and security based on common interests and protection, progress and faith, for the future of the islands is of paramount importance to all loyalists. Their future treatment must stand for ever, where good faith and honour abide. We had ports, our ports in Ireland. The Crown once held Tangier and the Ionian Islands. We refused Delagoa Bay at a price of £60,000. A Government spokesman in this House told the House that he did not know where the Norman Islands were! The worth of those ports to us during the South African war, for instance, or now—can any estimate be placed upon it? The President of the United States the other day said: "the Hawaiian Islands used to be considered an outpost; to-day they constitute a major base." "He that bath ears to hear let him hear." It is only the impossible that happens. I, even I, can remember a strong agitation to "cut the painter" between ourselves and the great Dominions—Colonies as they were then.
792
Had those Dominions treated their Mother Country as this country has treated her island home, where should we be?—as the facetious Hans Breitman said, "Gone mit der lager beer. Gone in der evig keit," and we would have deserved it. So much for human wisdom, prescience, statesmanship, as opposed to the dictates of honour, patriotism and loyalty.
At the present moment the islands are very strongly fortified and held. The German, whom we sometimes look upon as a kind of military fool, thought he knew their value, and has spent enormous sums in fortifying them. Guernsey is well nigh impregnable and Guernsey closes the entrance and the exit to the Channel. The "Gneisenau," poor "Gneisenau," in Brest, bombed day after day with of course the small bombs we had in those days, came with her consorts up Channel and inside Guernsey waters, and startled Dover. In 1940 the Government decided that the islands could not defend themselves, though for years that defence had been settled and agreed upon and paid for. The islanders had defended themselves all through history, and it is no use telling us now, "Oh, but you forget the bombs, my boy." The man is the article required, whether he be in the field or on the office stool. And this excuse was made for taking away all the arms and hauling down the flag and leaving the people in the lurch. I say Pétain had a higher ideal. His conduct was hardly less worthy. He delayed when he found that the French would not fight; this Government left her charge twenty-four hours before the enemy came, having accepted the islands' money and at least one division of fighting men. My Lords, some do not like the words "abandonment" and "betrayal." I am not seeking to find words, but I say it was a case of matricide.
From the islanders' point of view it must not be overlooked—and this, if I may say so, is the important point—that the German at the time of our flight, that is to say, just before the Battle of Britain, was convinced that England herself would drop into his lap in a few days. Military fool as we think him, he did not need to risk a single man, not a Pomeranian grenadier, not a ship, not a 'plane, in an attack on the islands. They were his. He had only to wait a few more days, and when he had conquered

793
England they were his—a ripe plum. Again, Guernsey is 35 square miles in extent—not the size of many a deer forest. No large force could have been used in that confined area; her size protected her. If the islands could not have been held by the islanders for a few weeks, those men at least could have died, and died decently, instead of being slaves. And how could they die better? If anybody knows I trust he will tell me. "With your shield or on it," said the Spartan mother. In their deep lanes and caves—I myself know one cave which is over one hundred yards long. No sacred places! No Athens! No Benedictine monastery! No Rome! Let 'em bomb the open fields. They would have done very little harm. But they were too wise; they would not have wasted their bombs when they thought they were going to have England in their lap. "Impossible to defend," said the Government. "Impossible to defend; the odds are too great."
Fancy a British Government, an English Government, saying the odds were too great, a thousand to one, people would be killed! We have heard of Agincourt, we have heard of Poictiers, and we know the recent Mediterranean story—I am sure it is known to your Lordships—of our three cruisers, with 6-in. guns, who knew that a battle fleet was coming out to meet them, and yet steamed straight ahead. A whole fleet of battleships, cruisers and T.B.D's—incalculable odds. One salvo and the cruisers would sink, and not a postage stamp would be left. But we had a man in command. He did not consider odds; he considered his country. He was not a pusillanimous "Harumfrodite." No, he was a man fit to stand at Nelson's right hand. Well, you know the result. When those battleships appeared he tried to pepper them with his small guns, and they turned and scattered. Is there one of you who would not have chosen the command of those three cruisers and the glory—"noble names devoted nobly, high ancestral deeds to share"—rather than the command of the battle fleet that scattered? Still, you cannot measure the odds.
Now the Red Cross, acting with the Government's sanction, and the Government having asked the Germans' permission, have sent this small duty ship which some "sob-stuffers" call a mercy ship—a mercy ship ! —carrying
794
some 750 tons of medicine and food. This leviathan was intended to run a bimonthly service from Lisbon, a service that would have meant 26 ozs. of food per head per day if good fortune went with her and if time, tide and sea permitted. It was of course a neutral ship and a neutral crew, one ship only to run from Lisbon, but no sister ship, no alternative service, no substitute. There might have been air transport, but the Government would not, or did not, think fit to ask for that. After some trouble, and there was trouble, this ship unloaded her 750 tons in the island and the inspector who landed sent in a report to the Government. The Americans now are offering fifty ships to France. I ask for food and fuel for those of our own blood. I ask that first. Let us ask for two ships to carry through the services—two neutral ships with neutral crews. Have we no ports left? I ask for fuel, too, for even food must be cooked.
The story I have tried to tell your Lordships is written in blood. It is in the heart of every islander, of every man who knows the facts. It is ineffaceable. It will remain generation after generation; it will take the place of anno domini as a basic date; it will be the year of the matricide with the child offering her parent to the wolves. It is the lowest level, the very nadir ever reached by a British Government. But it is not too late even now to succour, or to try to succour, if it only be with a word of comfort, of praise and sincerity, something generous. Send food and fuel and clothing. Devise some plan now. The facts are no longer denied. Let there be some plan to relieve, as soon as possible, this great injustice, this great wrong. Do not pour out your foods on aliens who bite, or will bite your hands. Do something to save honour and duty. Look the foe in the face, meet him and beat him at the gates. Will not the Government give us some inkling of a policy? I beg to move.
4.14 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, the noble Lord has on several occasions asked questions of His Majesty's Government in regard to the plight of the Channel Islanders, as I shall still take leave to call them, and he has done so with intense sincerity of feeling, but on most of those occasions he has found himself without any other speaker to support

795
him. That has not been, I am sure, from any lack of sympathy among your Lordships with the Channel Islanders, certainly not from any lack of sympathy in my own heart seeing they are in my diocese. Nor has it been from any lack of admiration for the passionate devotion which the noble Lord has to the cause for which he pleads. At the same time I think it ought to be said in this place that the noble Lord is not the only member of your Lordships' House who does feel real sympathy with tilt Channel Islanders in their plight.
Many of us feel that the noble Lord in his pleading really does misrepresent the position, that he minimizes the difficulties which have confronted His Majesty's Government and that he certainly minimizes what they have most certainly achieved. When he first put down his Motion some six weeks ago I had looked forward to the pleasure of supporting him in pressing His Majesty's Government as to whether they really were using every means to persuade the German Government to consent to the sending of a relief ship. I think in deference to representations made to the noble Lord he postponed his Motion and meanwhile, post hoc perhaps rather than propter hoc, the Government happily acted. The noble Lord has been singularly lukewarm I think in expressing gratitude to the Government for what they have done and I am glad to take this opportunity on behalf, I am sure, of vast numbers of people in this country and certainly of many Channel Islanders in this country and their relatives and friends with whom I personally am in touch, of congratulating the Government on their action in securing the dispatch of the "Vega" to Jersey and Guernsey. No doubt the amount of help which that ship was able to bring, especially on the first voyage, was small, but it must have meant a very great deal to the islanders in the form of assuring them that they were remembered by the people of this country. I know a good deal about the measure of the relief which it has brought to the minds and the feelings and anxieties of their friends and relatives here.
I am sure your Lordships will wish somebody not only to express this appreciation to the Government of what they have done in this matter, but also very warmly to thank the International Red
796
Cross and the gallant seamen who handled the boat on that rather adventurous voyage. But beyond that I am happy to be able to support the noble Lord in expressing the hope that the noble Earl who replies for the Government on this occasion will be able to assure the House, and through this House the country, that everything possible will be done, not only to continue the relief which has been sent to the islands but to enlarge its scale. It may be that he will be able also to tell us whether he is assured that some part of the relief already sent has actually reached the civilians in the islands, how the cost has been defrayed and how the cost of the relief which I hope will still be sent, will be met. I think it is in the public interest that something should be said about the cost and who is to pay it. Admittedly the islanders are comparatively few in number, their privations are becoming very real, and yet I know that they are not so terrible as the privations of millions on the Continent of Europe. On the other hand, we all in this House recognize that though the Channel Islanders are few in number they are very near to us, they are our own kith and kin and we have it on high authority that even to the few our obligations can be great.
4.20 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I do not propose to keep your Lordships for more than a few minutes lout I want it to be made clear, as the right reverend Prelate has suggested, that there is no lack of sympathy in this House for the islanders. Some years ago I raised the matter in another place again and again. I can understand the emotion of the noble Lord who raised the matter this afternoon, having regard to his connexion with the islands. However, I rise just to ask a question because I received a letter this morning from the Channel Islands in which the writer, after expressing appreciation of the amount of relief that has got to the islands, goes on to say that while there is great privation the islanders are suffering most from lack of fuel. He asked me to inquire if it is possible for the Government to make any statement as to whether they have any real policy with regard to the position of the islands. I think there may have been a good deal of exaggeration about conditions in the islands, but I do not think there is much

797
exaggeration so far as lack of fuel is concerned, though there may have been as regards the food supply. We must all have some sense of responsibility, for I suppose hardly one of us can look back without a certain feeling of humiliation because probably for the first time for a thousand years British territory was evacuated without any struggle. That I think we shall never quite live down. What we can do is to make what recompense possible, and I would like the representative of His Majesty's Government not only to tell us what has been done—some of us know it is a little more than we have been given credit for—but whether they have any policy.
4.22 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I quite agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, has just said so far as the future is concerned. We would be all much relieved if we could have an assurance about the rehabilitation of the islands and the restoration of the life of the people there. It would not be enough just to give them whatever allowances other people are given for damage suffered. There must be a general rehabilitation scheme, especially in the case of Alderney which was entirely evacuated. That is the least that can be done for these people after all they have been through.
4.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord who placed this Motion on the Paper this afternoon spoke with some warmth and I shall be forgiven I hope if I do not follow the many ramifications he pursued in explaining his question to your Lordships. But I would say at once that it is wrong—entirely wrong—to say that the people in the Channel Islands have not the sympathy of His Majesty's Government. In point of fact His Majesty's Government hold the deepest sympathy for these people in the troubles and trials which have come upon them through no fault of their own. If I wished to be controversial with the noble Lord, I could remind him that he was a member of another place for some considerable time and perhaps on his shoulders rests a considerable degree of responsibility for the failure lo build up armaments in this country in time to go to war. My noble friend should know by now, because he has been told before, that the responsibility for sustaining and nourishing the
798
civil population of all occupied countries rests entirely upon the Occupying Power and His Majesty's Government, as has been repeatedly stated, are doing everything they can to supplement the basic rations of the civil population in the Channel Islands.
Since the date when my noble friend last placed a question on the Order Paper we have received preliminary reports from the representatives of the International Red Cross who visited the Channel Islands on the first voyage of the "Vega." The reports which they have sent us indicate that the unloading and disposal of the supplies proceeded satisfactorily. Those for Guernsey and Sark were unloaded on December 29 and those for Jersey on January 2. I take it that those supplies are now in the hands of the civil population. The "Vega" returned to Lisbon on January 9 but unfortunately she was damaged in harbour in Guernsey and repairs have become necessary. It was not possible for her to sail again on the date originally intended, but I have been informed that she is to sail on her second trip to the Channel Islands on February 1. I have heard no suggestion except from the noble Lord that one ship is inadequate for the task, but if the Red Cross organization represent to His Majesty's Government that another ship is required he can take it from me that every possible effort will be made to find another ship with a neutral crew to take supplies to the Channel Islanders. When this ship sails again she will carry as many as possible of the articles which were recommended by the Red Cross representative. The stores she will carry will include soap and salt, medical supplies and drugs and more food parcels, and will do a great deal to alleviate the position. The question of evacuating seriously ill persons who cannot receive proper medical attention in the islands was discussed by the Red Cross representatives and the matter is now being actively pursued by the Government.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, I can say that the question of coal is also receiving urgent consideration and I hope I shall be in a position to make a statement shortly. There is undoubtedly a certain shortage of coal. The "Vega" carried on her first voyage a quantity of mail from prisoners of war and civil internees in Germany to their friends and relatives in the islands, and

799
the ship took back on her return journey a quantity of mail for the prisoners of war and civil internees from their friends in the islands, but it has not yet been possible to make arrangements for delivery of messages from the United Kingdom. Nevertheless I hope that it may ultimately be possible to transmit messages, although, as the noble Lord will appreciate, this is not a matter for His Majesty's Government only. There is unfortunately another Government concerned as well.
In reply to the right reverend Prelate I may say that the cost of the first journey of the "Vega" with supplies to the island was borne by the British Red Cross. The cost of the second and subsequent journeys that the ship will make will be borne partly by His Majesty's Government and partly by the British Red Cross. Finally, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I would ask that the point he raised should not be pressed this afternoon. The noble Lord can, however, rest assured that we are considering plans for dealing with the rehabilitation of the islands and of their people. There is little more that I can add to what I have said to-day and what has been said in the past, but I wish to repudiate most strongly many of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Portsea, which would have been very much better left unsaid.
4.29 p.m.
LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer but I would say that while it is easy to repudiate it is not easy to prove that repudiation is either just or fair. I would ask the noble Earl to look up Hansard for the autumn of 1932 when in another place I brought forward the position of this country, its lack of armaments and all that that lack of armaments meant for the future. The islands' defence, as I have said, was left, and left by agreement, to the islanders themselves and paid for by them. And they could, and would, have defended their islands, if their arms and munitions had not been taken from them. The place was looked upon as a kind of "buffet." I can remember how at the time of the South African war there was a regiment in Jersey—altogether, I believe, there were about 600 Regulars and 3,000
800
Militia on the island—and the War Office sent over an inquiry as to how many cartridges they had because cartridges were badly needed. And how many cartridges do you think they had? Altogether there were just 671, and these were duly sent to the War Office in London. That was the kind of consideration and care which the War Office and the Government in those days showed for the islands and they have shown rather less on this occasion. It is not necessary to remind me that these islands are now in the possession of another Power. It is the whole gravamen of my charge against the Government that they let that other Power go there, that they cleared out—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I really must interrupt my noble friend. Does he really mean to suggest that His 'Majesty's Government quite deliberately let the islands fall as a gift into the hands of the enemy?
LORD PORTSEA: I know it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: You do not.
LORD PORTSEA: Thank you. The Government left the islands to their fate; they took down the flag and took away the arms twenty-four hours before the Germans arrived. If you do not call that leaving them, what do you call it? I suggest that the Government abandoned the islands. Surely the noble Earl knows that. If he does not, he has only to look the matter up.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I disagree with everything you say on this, but it is not worth while my going on.
LORD PORTSEA: The noble Earl has been serving his country. He has been very well employed for he has been abroad fighting, and, of course, he has not had time to do more than one thing at a time. But I can assure him that what I say is correct. The Government took away arms, munitions and the flag twenty-four hours before the Germans arrived. If that is not leaving the islands, deserting them, and, to use a word which I used before and which Lord Selborne did not like, betraying them, what is it? If that is not betrayal then the word has lost its meaning. I may say that I have looked up the word in the Oxford Dictionary very

801
carefully in order to make sure what it means. Well, it was a thing that England had never done before in her history, and one which I trust she will never do again. My Lords, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table. The same was ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.