Lords Sitting of 29 May 1945

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at two of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Earl of Wilton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name I must direct your Lordships' attention to the fact that instead of having the Coalition Government, which has for the last five years been the expression of national unity, and which has brought this country and the Empire, under the inspired leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, through the greatest dangers which they have ever faced, your Lordships meet to-day a new Government. It is still under the leadership of my right honourable friend Mr. Churchill, and I hope that it will command the confidence of your Lordships' House.
Further, we are faced with the prospect of a Dissolution of the present Parliament on the 15th of next month. That means that, even if we sit five days a week next week and the week after, we have at the most only fourteen days (assuming that we shall have business for the coming Friday, which I believe is highly unlikely, as the Bills will not have come from another place by that time), in which to complete a very formidable legislative programme. I have consulted the leaders of the Parties opposite, the noble Lords, Lord Addison and Lord Samuel, and, as I have learned to expect from them, they have promised me their most cordial co-operation in getting the necessary legislation through the House as expeditiously as possible. I am afraid, however, that we shall require for this purpose all the time that is available, and I hope that I may ask those of your Lordships
234
who still have Motions on the Paper after the present week to be good enough to postpone them until the new Parliament shall have met, unless it transpires that we get through the necessary business of the House earlier than one might perhaps expect.
I regret greatly to trespass on your Lordships' time. Some of the Bills, however, are absolutely necessary in order that the Government may go on. There are certain Bills on which some of us have spent a large amount of time during the last twelve months in trying to get them into legislative shape, and if it is possible to pass them as a monument to a Coalition Government which has been a very good Government, it will be a matter of gratification both to those of us who are now in the Government and to those of my noble friends who now sit on the Opposition Benches. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for the remainder of the Session, and that Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Woolton).
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, it has become a custom at the end of Parliaments for members to be confronted with Motions of this character, and we accept them with such resignation as we can command. The noble Lord has been good enough to show me a list of the Bills which it is hoped it will be possible to pass through all their stages, and he will meet with no obstructive attitude on this side of the House. At the same time, there are one or two Motions which my noble friends will be anxious to have an opportunity to discuss, and which I mentioned to the noble Lord this morning. One Motion in particular which we think should be discussed is that which deals with the position with regard to the supply of fish. We shall want to have an occasion for discussing that if possible; otherwise the noble Lord can be assured that we are exceedingly reasonable people.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I have nothing to add, except to express concurrence with the course proposed by the Government. Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word on the Family Allowances Bill.

235
It is more a House of Commons Bill than a House of Lords Bill, but I am sure that it will be welcomed by your Lordships' House, and I hope that it will not miscarry in the circumstances of the moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WELSH CHURCH (BURIAL GROUNDS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

CLEARING OFFICE (TURKEY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1945.
Order, dated 15th May, 1945, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1945:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WATER BILL.
2.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on the departure, to our great regret, of the
236
noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to the Benches opposite, my noble friend Lord Munster should have moved the Second Reading of this rather complicated measure; but the noble Earl had a political engagement of long standing which he found it difficult to throw over, and therefore it falls to me to move the Second Reading We have seen a good deal lately in the newspapers of the word "caretaker." In a sense I am the caretaker for the day of this particular Bill, and I would inform your Lordships that on the future stages the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will be in his place and able to take the Bill. As your Lordships will see, the Bill is rather a long one, consisting of sixty-three clauses and five Schedules, of which one, the Third Schedule, is almost a Bill in itself. It deals with a not very exhilarating, but a very important element in our daily life. The Bill follows very closely the proposals in the White Paper, Cmd. 6515, published in April last year, which no doubt your Lordships have studied and with which you are familiar. A very large part of this Bill, including the Third Schedule, has already, in a way, been passed by this House in the Bills of 1939 and 1943. These passed this House, as your Lordships may remember, but were held up in another place and never became Acts.
The Bill deals with two main matters: first of all the conservation and use of water supply and water resources; and secondly, the improvement of administration of the supply. This Bill is very necessary because up to now the only large Acts dealing nationally with water have been the Act of nearly a hundred years ago, 1847, and its successor of 1863. The position of the Act of 1847, which is generally, I think, commonly known as the "Waterworks Code," is that it is not an Act which works of itself but which becomes operative when it is incorporated, with of course any necessary adaptations, in the special Act of any particular undertaking. The Act of 1863 added a few clauses to the Code but up to to-day there has been no general revision of the Code by any Act of Parliament.
This new Code is based on the Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, which has now sat for some years under the Chairmanship of my noble friend the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord

237
Milne, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, because I should like to take this opportunity of saying how very much indebted the Houses of Parliament and the country are to my noble friend and his Committee for their untiring labours. That Report formed the basis of the Water Undertakings Bills of 1939 and 1943, to which I referred just now, which were passed by this House but for which no time could be found in another place. So that the first object, I might say, of this Bill is to clear up the present old and, as it were, untidy Code, and to adapt it to modern conditions in a general Act, instead of in a series of special and local Acts.
To turn to the Bill, your Lordships will see that it is divided into five Parts with five Schedules, to one of which I have already referred. Part I lays on the Minister the duty of providing in England and Wales adequate water supplies, and in Clause 2 it makes permanent the Central Advisory Water Committee, to which I referred just now. Part II deals with local organization of water supplies, and includes two important clauses—Clause 9, which facilitates amalgamations of undertakers in the interests of greater efficiency, and provides for compulsory contributions, where necessary; and Clause 13, which sets out the default powers of the Minister in relation to companies and other statutory undertakers. Part III, which is, in a way, the most interesting Part of the Bill, deals with the conservation and protection of water resources and the prevention of waste. Clause 14 enables the Minister, if he thinks that special measures are required to conserve water in any area, to make an Order defining this area, and in that case a licence is afterwards required to sink any new well or to enlarge any existing well in that particular area. Part IV enables statutory undertakers to construct works, purchase land, and obtain a supply of water, and to deal with various matters incidental to the carrying on of their undertakings. Part V deals with matters of machinery, definitions, and so forth. I might mention here Clauses 24, 25 and 26, in which provision is made for water undertakers to acquire and hold land by agreement or compulsorily and to acquire water rights. Another important clause is Clause 37, which lays on undertakers the duty of supplying water for new
238
houses. Clause 40 empowers the Minister to revise water rates and charges.
I think I have said enough about the purpose and details of this Bill, which is rather a complicated measure, and I am of opinion that the full explanation of its clauses and Schedules and its various provisions in the present congested state of business would entail too long a draft on your Lordships' time and patience. As the Minister said in another place, this country is greatly indebted to water undertakers of past years who have provided safe and ample water supplies for our cities and towns, whereby we have for many years now avoided the dangers of cholera, typhoid and such-like diseases. But His Majesty's Government are fully aware that one-third of the houses in our countryside are still without a piped water supply; and they are also aware of the very large demand, which increases from year to year and almost from month to month, both for domestic and industrial uses, besides a very largely increased demand for agricultural purposes.
This Bill received a very exhaustive examination in another place, including twelve days in a Standing Committee. I very much hope that the House will give a favourable reception to it and will be prepared to take the remaining stages at possibly shorter notice than is usually allowed, in view of what I think is probably a general agreement that the Bill is both useful and necessary and should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment. I should like at this stage to pay a tribute to the Department and also to the Parliamentary draftsman because I really think—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that they have produced in this Bill a very clear and concise measure, and one in which there is very little of a type of legislation to which your Lordships particularly object, that is, legislation by reference. In conclusion, I would say that the Bill provides the framework to ensure that the development of our water supplies will at all events keep pace with our needs, and I confidently recommend it to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
2.21 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like in the first place to associate myself with the noble Lord's expression of regret

239
that my noble friend Lord Listowel was not, as he had prepared himself no doubt, provided with the opportunity of moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is one of those accidents of political life which unfortunately occur from time to time, and he and I share our regrets in common. I notice that the noble Lord, in concluding his statement, referred to this Bill as "clear and concise." Well, all I have to say is that the noble Lord may be satisfied with this Bill as being clear and concise, but to a mind like mine it appears exceedingly complicated and difficult. I have done my best to study this Bill—in fact I spent quite a long time on it, and I am not unused to studying Bills—but it seemed to me to be an exceedingly complicated one. I am glad he referred to the Third Schedule. I hope that members of the House will have taken the trouble to look at the Third Schedule. It is a potentous affair. It is, in fact, another Bill and there is in it a very considerable amount of legislation by reference over which the noble Lord skated so gently.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: If the noble Lord will permit me, may I point out that in my remarks I did say that the Third Schedule was like another Bill?
LORD ADDISON: I was agreeing with you there. It was to the matter of legislation by reference that I was attaching a note of interrogation. I do not know whether other noble Lords know the Public Health Acts by heart, but I do not, and it would require a considerable amount of research in the Library of this House to ascertain what the alterations are. They may not be exceedingly far-reaching, but I will take them as good. I understand the position with regard to the Bill and that it may not, in the Parliamentary emergency, be possible to give as much time in the Committee stage as we should otherwise wish to have. We must acquiesce in that because it is a Bill, I am sure, that must be passed into law—we agree as to that. But it is an exceedingly complicated Bill and, in spite of the simplicity of the noble Lord's description, I am sure that if we were to take the Bill in Committee that would be the unanimous opinion of the House.
I do not myself share the enthusiasm which I have seen displayed for the Bill in some quarters. It does not establish
240
a national water authority. It establishes a Central Advisory Committee, which has power to advise the Minister and to make suggestions but has not the power to do anything. There will be a certain amalgamation of water undertakings, which is exceedingly desirable, but I think it is fair to say that it does not approach anything in the form of a national water authority able to take cognizance of our water supplies and resources and use them rationally. We shall still have an enormous number of local or district water undertakings functioning as best they can, and there will not be the co-ordination of the management of our national water resources which, if we were not prejudiced by existing legislation, any rational set of people would set about creating.
However, it is a Bill which tries to make the best of the situation and will no doubt, in due course, lead to considerable amalgamations and harmonization of our water undertakings. Let us hope so. But I would not be too sanguine even about the rapidity of that, because if noble Lords will examine the Bill they will see that it is beset with hearings, appeals, notices and all the rest of it, and whoever else may do well out of this Bill the legal fraternity will. That prophecy you can make with complete confidence. The opportunities for objection, litigation and hearings are exceedingly numerous.
Having said that, I still would not fail to render tribute to the general purpose of the Bill, though it is not the duty, so far as I can see, except possibly at prohibitive expense, to supply our countryside with water as it ought to be supplied. It is true that new buildings will have to have a water supply, under Clause 37, but the owner may be required each year to pay specified sums, and noble Lords, I am sure, will be aware of the enormous cost that is involved in our country areas at present in obtaining adequate water supplies in a large number of cases. The noble Lord told us that one third of our houses in the country were not supplied with a piped water supply. It makes the supply of water almost prohibitive if the charge for pipes and so forth is to be placed upon the individual or group of individuals concerned. The charge should be distributed on a wide regional basis, and it should be made the duty of an authority to supply the countryside

241
with water. Well, we have not got that yet and this Bill does not get us there except at what I think will prove to be prohibitive expense. We get plenty of water from one year's end to another in this country, and it ought to be possible, by distributing the charge equally over the whole of the community, to supply every group of habitations in the country with an adequate water supply. That is a physical possibility and it ought to be done. I do not think it will be done very quickly under this Bill, except, as I say, at rather high cost.
There are two minor matters to which perhaps the noble Lord will give thought between now and the Committee stage and which I have been asked to mention. In the Bill as it was introduced in another place there was a repetition of what is commonly known as the Birmingham Clause, which authorizes people to walk about on catchment areas so long is they behave themselves properly. It is quite reasonable that they should be allowed to do so. For some reason which I cannot understand at all, in the Committee stage in the other House the operative part of the clause as it was then introduced was dropped, so that it is not certain, as the Bill stands at present, that in this case the right may not be taken away. I think we ought to see that that is safeguarded, and in Committee my noble friend Lord Winster will move an Amendment which raises the point. We shall only be seeking to put back into the Bill the words that were in it when it was introduced in another place, so there is nothing excessive about the Amendment. We want to restore the clause to its previous condition so far as that particular power is concerned.
Another matter to which my attention has been called is that in some of these cases where boreholes for new works are made, water may be drained from areas of people who now have a water supply of their own. They may be deprived of their water supply. Those are cases where adequate provision should be made to make up to them what they have lost. In country districts that may be exceedingly important. What the people want who are deprived of water in those circumstances is an alternative supply of water, and that is what they ought to get. That is the point which I know others will mention and which I think
242
ought to receive attention on the Committee stage. And there is one other point. I am informed that in some areas the extent of pollution that has been allowed to arise during the war period is very excessive, and although the authorities here have certain powers against pollution I certainly think the adequacy of those powers requires investigation. I only mention these more or less Committee points to give the noble Lord some notice of-the matters that may be raised. Generally, however, we shall seek to assist in the passage of the Bill.
2.30 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I desire to say a very few words about this Bill, because I think on the whole the House is in agreement with it and feels it is most desirable that it should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment. It certainly is a very considerable step forward in dealing with a problem that is of vital importance to the whole country and especially to the countryside. I cannot help sharing with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who has just sat down, the view that this is not likely to be the last word on the subject. The noble Lord referred to the fact, now well known, that only a third of our rural cottages at the moment have an adequate water supply. This Bill will undoubtedly lead to an increase of that one-third to a very much higher proportion, but I am sceptical as to whether it is going to take us up to the 100 per cent. we all desire to get and which indeed was promised to us some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in what then struck me as a most admirable but rather optimistic speech.
I think it is a pity that we cannot have rather longer for the consideration of this Bill because undoubtedly it does raise most serious issues. On the other hand, matters for which noble Lords on this Bench are not entirely responsible have intervened and we must all try to work in with the position that has arisen. But there is one real point I want to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, has already touched upon it briefly, but it might be useful to the House if I gave noble Lords notice now of an Amendment that I intend to put down. The point is very simple. Under Clause 14 power is given to the Minister to make orders defining areas in which after definition

243
no one may bore for water without a licence. That is obviously right so far as it goes but it may well be, as the noble Lord said, that in certain specific cases an undertaker may go into an area which may be defined under Clause 14, and the undertaker may make full use of all the water there, thus depriving existing users of their water supply. The noble Lord referred to owners of existing wells. I had in my mind such undertakings as, say, watercress growers. I mention them particularly because I know they will command the instant sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, whose neighbours are so intimately concerned in this very important little agricultural industry and I have no doubt when he replies he will tell me he is able at once to put all my fears at rest.
What I want to suggest in my Amendment is that an undertaker in such a case should have to make himself responsible for the provision of an alternative supply. There may be certain instances where that will be impossible, in which case money compensation should be paid to the existing user. I think we should all agree that money compensation is in fact a very poor form of compensation. We want the alternative supply, but in some cases it may well be that the national interest has to override the interest of the existing user and that an alternative supply cannot be provided. Then I propose that money compensation should be paid. That is the only point I want to mention and I do so now in order that His Majesty's Government may have an opportunity of considering it before the Committee stage is reached.
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I will take up your Lordships' time for a very few minutes only. I desire in the first place to express my sympathy with the noble Lord who has just sat down on the particular Amendment which he is proposing to move, and also to say that I entirely agree with him that a Bill which is admittedly of such complexity and which involves such very long views for the future, is one which should not in normal circumstances be rushed through by Government, caretaker or otherwise. It is so very easy, speaking as a humble Cross Bencher, to approve the popular arid legitimate purpose behind this Bill. I have been a protagonist,
244
not only in the dictionary and classical sense of the word but in the accepted Fleet Street sense of the word, of water supplies for many years now, and I realize fully how necessary this Bill is. At the same time there is probably nothing which will affect our future more seriously than hasty water legislation. To my mind, in spite of Part III of the Bill, which deals with water conservation, some safeguards are required. It has always been thoroughly understood as a convention of your Lordships' House that with the expert knowledge of particular members of your Lordships' House coupled with the long and sagacious view which they are able to take on matters of this kind, this type of Bill should have the very closest and most careful consideration in this House as well as in another place. While I am fully aware that twelve days were spent in Committee in another place, perusal of certain days of the Report in Hansard of that Committee stage has not given me full confidence that the issues were thoroughly understood or that the technique was mastered.
There is another point in Clause 13 which I wish to mention. There is so much opportunity in this Bill for legislation (which we have had again and again) by the good intention of the Minister. We are always ready to praise the Minister of the moment but the Minister of tomorrow and the Government behind him—I am not making any Party aspersions in any sense or any implication—may be an entirely different matter. I do not think we can legislate by the good intention of a Minister. That is one of the very serious faults I have to find in this Bill. Again—I think it is in Clause 3 of the Bill—there is machinery set up for regional water boards or area water boards for advice. There you will find local authorities and the statutory water undertakers have been mentioned as being the people, other than the Chairman whom the Minister will appoint, who will advise. In the long run the greatest harm that can be done through carelessness of water usage will be on the countryside itself, to the agriculture and the forestry of the country, and to all the people who gain their living thereby. Nobody is mentioned to give advice from their point of view.
It is such a long-term affair that I myself feel that the result will be that harm is done before you can really realize

245
what has happened. It is only at the end of ten, fifteen or twenty years that you see the damage done and by that time all the other interests have become so definitely implanted that you may be in very great danger of producing almost an ecological cataclysm in the countryside without knowing it. I only wish on Second Reading to say by way of warning that I think, in spite of good intentions and in spite of the great deal of good that may be accomplished, we are very seriously endangering the future by not giving this matter the full consideration which ordinarily would be given.
2.40 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am extremely obliged for the generally favourable reception given to this Bill. The noble Lord opposite, as he was bound to do I chink now that we have got back to Party Government, rather damned it with faint praise, but I do not take back what I said, that it is a simple, well-drafted Bill. The noble Lord seemed to infer that I did not understand every word of the Bill. Probably I do not, but I have read it as well as I could and I have read many worse Bills. I still stick to my opinion that the draftsmanship is excellent. I have taken note of the Amendments which the noble Lord said would be brought forward on the Committee stage. I am much obliged also for the remarks made by the noble Earls, Lord De La Warr and Lord Portsmouth. If it had been possible we should have liked to have given more time to this Bill but, as the noble Lord who is leading the House said at the beginning of our proceedings, we are very pressed fur time with the Dissolution coming or June if; and with the best will in the world we cannot give as much as we should like to give to this measure. I do not think, however, we are doing too badly. We are putting down the Committee stage for next Monday and with our congested programme I do not think that is too bad.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3aand passed.

CONTROL OF GERMAN WAR INVENTIONS.
2.43 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative in proposing to the Allied Governments the inclusion in the terms imposed upon Germany of an Article providing that a permanent Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists should be established to examine and control, and if necessary to prohibit the use by Germany of, any scientific discovery or invention considered dangerous to the safety of mankind; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to think that this Motion speaks for itself. I would suggest that the Prime Minister's last war review speaks for it even more loudly. In the last war the ingenious barbarians sprang gas upon us. That was a prelude. There was an insufficient answer to that. In this war we have had the V1 and the V2. There was only a still more insufficient answer to the V1, and the V2 found no answer at all, or rather it would be fairer to say that the answer was the same as for V3, the multiple long-range artillery described by the Prime Minister which was destined to endow us with five shells per minute. The remedy found was the old-fashioned one of conquering the sites—that is to say, the answer of infantry and not of science. Even that remedy will not always be available, because ranges increase and sites recede. Indeed, the ranges, in a very short while, may be almost unlimited. Even with short ranges we were very nearly too late. If the V1 and the V2 had been brought into action one year sooner they would probably have made an end of this island, and if they had 'been brought in some years sooner, that is at the beginning of the war, they might

247
well have meant the end of civilization. Therefore, in dealing with a nation that is periodically homicidal, I think no precaution is excessive.
All precautions are indispensable, because without them I think the end might well be the end of an American fairy story which we read when we were very young. No doubt that story was written with an inkling of Reno because they lived happy ever after for quite a little while. I say that because destructive science has got out of hand. German science, like German religion, German economics, German pedagogy, has been very largely militarized and unless we keep a firm hand on it we shall very likely have the V10 in less than ten years. It is not my purpose to paint lurid pictures of cities dissolved by pressing a button, though I suppose that is now within the bounds of possibility. We have had one lesson and it will be our own fault if we have another.
I have said that this Motion speaks for itself, but there is one point which I think needs a little explanation. This Motion is destined not only to control German science, but to control the grant by any country, Allied, neutral or ex-neutral, of permission to Germany to use any apparatus or device, or discovery, or invention of a potentially dangerous character, developed elsewhere. I lay stress on the necessity of this multilateral assent. Your Lordships will see that that makes the ground a great deal wider, because if that is accepted it means that no nations in future shall have secrets from each other in this lethal sphere. I feel that is very necessary and I press this multilateral aspect because after the last war a great number of the Allies and the neutrals in varying degrees took part in the re-arming and financing of our late enemies. We want no more of the unilateral. I submit that science must be linked for self-preservation and not destruction. I submit that we can afford no other solution except that of pooling. We have already a very happy example of pooling between the British Commonwealth and the United States. That takes place among the combined Chiefs of Staff. I suggest we might carry that further and that all-in pooling for all in the future should be brought about through the Military Staffs Committee which is to advise the new Security Council.
What exactly does all this involve? It involves a good deal, and I submit that a good deal is a good deal better than another raw deal. It involves control of all German laboratories, both industrial and university. That in turn involves the use of an extensive and intensive intelligence service which must be drawn from all the Allies. I mention that particularly because your Lordships will remember that twice in this House I have spoken against the idea of a quadruple monopoly, if I may so put it. I think that very happy results would follow in the field of intelligence if it were inter-allied, because you could draw upon very valuable resources. It would be most inadvisable to ignore them. I want intelligence to be linked in exactly the same way as science. Over and above that we should have, I think, a body of civil inspectors on the lines recently suggested by the President of Harvard University, Dr. Conant. And I would like to take that a bit further and suggest that this civil inspectorate might, in due course, become a world inspectorate in order to guard against development, or over-development, of secret devices. I am very well aware that no clause of this kind has yet figured in any treaty. That is all the more reason why it should figure in the present one, or rather in the ultimate one. The failure of past settlements, I submit, makes it necessary that we should contemplate innovations. There will always be need for new measures in a new world so long as man's destructive ingenuity outruns at its present prodigious pace his ability to eliminate his more primitive elements.
I have seen that, according to a Notice on the Paper, there is to be a discussion in this House to-morrow on "directed missiles," and I am not sure whether what has been said earlier to-day involves withdrawal of that Motion or not. But I should be very sorry if the noble Lord who is to put that Motion were to find that, by reason of anything I have said to-day, part of his thunder had been, I will not say stolen, but accidentally anticipated. I will say this: I believe, in all sincerity, that the Motion which I am putting is one of the most important factors in relation to the future, perhaps the most important one. If something on these lines be not accepted, I would predict, with the same absolute certainty with which I predicted this war, that in

249
a short while the nations may find themselves engaging in secret armaments races of a far more terrifying character than any of their overt or semi-overt predecessors. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am taking an over-grave view of this matter, but I think it only right that the House should know that a Motion on exactly similar lines is going to be introduced very shortly into the Parliaments of a number of our Continental Allies. I hope, therefore, that we shall give them a good lead to-day. Other minds that speak with some authority are also moving on the same lines. For example, the well-known American expert Mr. Fielding Elliot. He has recently written an admirable article entitled Science and Foreign Policy which follows very much on these lines. I will submit to your Lordships his conclusion on this matter; if you think the words are exaggerated I would ask you to bear in mind that they are his and not mine. He says that
"failing a solution on these lines the human race and all its works will be wiped out in blood and fire."
I beg to move for Papers.
2.54 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I find myself in the pleasant position of agreeing with practically everything that has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord. That, I hope, will be as refreshing to him as it is to me. We have not always seen eye to eye, but I think that to-day he is, if he will allow me to say so, batting on a very good wicket. My noble friends on these Benches ask me to express our point of view concerning the undoubtedly most important subject which Lord Vansittart has introduced to your Lordships this afternoon. I presume that his Motion should be read as including Japan in the future. I imagine that he desires that there should be set up immediately an Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists to deal with Germany, and I hope that Lord Cherwell, who, I understand, is going to reply for the Government, will be able to give us some useful and satisfactory information about that matter this afternoon.
I hope and believe that as soon as we are in a position to do it the same procedure will be applied to Japan. I understand that in the last phases of the European campaign, our German enemies were careful to fit out some long-range submarines
250
and send them to Japan laden with plans and blueprints for various secret weapons. They also sent to Japan a number of key designers and some of the most brilliant German inventors employed by the Messerschmitt outfit. I sincerely hope that these submarines were intercepted, but the Germans no doubt made earlier attempts to get information to Japan for the purpose of further mischief, and I dare say that some, at any rate, of it managed to get to Japan before the last phase of the war. The Japanese are very good imitators. I do not think that they are very good initiators or inventors, but if the Germans have shown them the way they will develop these devilish implements, which have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, to our hurt and discomfort. Certainly in the future I presume there will be some sort of scientific control over Japanese laboratories and chemical works and schools of invention exercised as proposed with regard to Germany.
I understand that I have interpreted the noble Lord's views aright so far. I also understand him to propose that in future the discoveries of this kind, and other far-reaching scientific discoveries, should be published to the world. That is an idealistic proposal. We have the same sort of thing, of course, with regard to medical discoveries. For many years now any surgeon or physician discovering a new cure, a new drug, or a new method has been in honour bound to publish it to the world—and always does so—for the use of the profession of healing in all nations. Could not that system be extended to other scientific discoveries, some of which, of course, have a high commercial value? This would be admirable if it can be done. We could have a permanent committee on awards to inventors not only for a war but in peace-time, and remunerate inventors of useful discoveries suitably instead of leaving them to wrestle with city sharks and financiers in endeavours to get their inventions exploited. Sometimes, I believe, it is the city people who win in these struggles, and sometimes it is the inventors. I think that Lord Cherwell will agree that the rewards for inventors would be better under a system of public awards. Could knowledge of these inventions be pooled and made available for industry all over the world? I know that my noble friends on this side

251
of the House would support that. It is idealistic, but I hope that we shall do it and that we shall be able to persuade other nations to do the same.
I have here a most interesting report from the American Office of War Information dated as long ago as May 6, 1943, in which is described the activities of the Custodian of Enemy Properties in the United States. I do not know if my noble friend Lord Vansittart is aware of this information but, even by the date which I have mentioned, the American Custodian, who appears to be most active and most efficient in rounding up enemy properties and interests in the United States, was able to report that he had a total of 41,077 patents, patents pending and patent applications owned by enemy nationals and nationals of enemy-occupied countries, covering inventions in every field of applied science. These have all been vested in and are now under the control of the Custodian. He goes on to explain how he had many of the German nationals in the United States who were posing as scientists and technicians arrested for being, undoubtedly, agents of the Nazi Party and so on. Indeed, the Custodian of Enemy Property in the United States seems to have done a very good job, and I have no doubt that the similar Department here acted promptly, and I hope ruthlessly, in the same way. I should like to ask whether we obtained the information gathered in that way in the United States and whether we communicated to the United States the information which we discovered in rounding up German patents and German undertakings in this country, because that would be a beginning of this pooling which would be helpful for the future.
With regard to the future of German science: I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, accepts the probability that there will be scientific research going on in Germany at some time in the future. There will be chemists working in laboratories and engineers delving into scientific developments. I do not see how that can be avoided. I have heard the proposal put forward that no German university should be allowed to teach anything but the Classics and ancient languages, and that no chemists or engineers or metallurgists should be allowed to graduate in Germany. I do not think that that is Practicable; I think that that is as Utopian
252
as the Morgenthau plan for confining Germany to agriculture and pastoral pursuits, and I presume that Lord Vansittart does not think that that is practicable either. I do not think that you can prevent the young Germans of the future, if they are so minded, from experimenting and carrying out researches and trying to develop new inventions and new discoveries; and I am glad to hear from his speech that Lord Vansittart recognizes that. There is no reason, however, why we should not keep an eye on them and control them, and that is broadly the proposal which the noble Lord makes.
The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would, however, like to have a worldwide inspectorate, so that we could be informed in time of dangerous discoveries which could be turned to dangerous uses against the whole of humanity. I do not know what the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, are on that. I have watched the proceedings at San Francisco very carefully, and have seen all sorts of proposals for the world-wide regulation of labour conditions and so on, but I have not seen any proposal for a world-wide inspectorate of scientific discovery. It could be done, and it might be done if the nations draw closer and closer together in co-operating for peaceable purposes and for their common good and advantage; but I think that a good deal of public education will be required in advance. The proposal shocks even me, and I am an internationalist in these matters, in peace-time at any rate.
There are two further observations which I should like to make. First, I detected symptoms of a small mistake in Lord Vansittart's brilliant argument—the idea that it is the sudden acquisition of some frightful new weapon which encourages wars. With great respect, I do not think that that is the case. I do not think that wars are made because someone discovers some terribly lethal poison gas or a new kind of rocket. I believe that wars come from quite different causes; at any rate I think it is very doubtful whether the fact that the Germans thought that they had some wonderful new weapons encouraged them to go into this war. They went into this war for quite other purposes, and the fact that they had weapons like the magnetic mine and the acoustic mine (which we had eighteen or twenty years before them)

253
was only incidental. It is not the discovery of new weapons or new appliances which makes wars. I am sure I carry the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, with me when I say that. You can blame the scientists for allowing their talents to be prostituted for the use of the war-makers, but you cannot blame the scientists for making the wars. It is the war-makers who make the wars, and they coerce or persuade or bribe the scientists into helping them. You may say, "More shame to the scientists," but there it is.
My last observation is this. I hope that Lord Vansittart's proposal is going to be put into force very quickly, and that it will have the most powerful support of the Governments of the great Allies; because the danger which I see—and I dare say that Lord Vansittart, with his wide knowledge of this question, shares my apprehension—is that certain big busines interests in the United States and in this country, who have been very glad in the past to work hand in glove with leaders of the German cartels and monopolies, will, after a time, when things have settled down, seek to make friends again with their old associates. There have been bitter complaints already in the American Congress of the revelation that certain of the leading cartels in the United States were deliberately preserving the interests of their opposite numbers, so to speak, in Germany in certain overseas markets; and, as surely as we are in this Chamber, in a little time, unless prevented, these same big business interests, who have no prejudices and no patriotism where money-making is concerned, will endeavour once more to make the same sort of arrangements with the German scientists, the German inventors, and the German financiers who exploit the inventions and scientific discoveries, as before. That is the danger. If Lord Vansittart's proposed Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists will stop that kind of thing and prevent the making of new arrangements between the old cartels—the machinery is still in existence in Switzerland for some of these arrangements, and could be brought into use at once—I believe that one of the possible causes of a future revival, underground and in secret, of German war-making power can be avoided.
3.10 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD CHERWELL): My Lords, Lord Vansittart has gone, if I may say so, a good deal
254
beyond the terms of his Motion in making his proposals for an inspectorate for all the nations of the world; and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has also divagated from the original terms in discussing matters of patent law and cartels and so forth. I think Lord Vansittart will know his old Department well enough to be sure that they will not wish me to enter into such very delicate questions at short notice, and I do not think that I should be prepared at this stage to say anything about the patent difficulties and other questions arising out of international cartels which were raised by Lord Strabolgi. I trust that your Lordships will be content if I keep to the terms of the Motion, which referred to an Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists who were to see that new scientific discoveries and inventions were not exploited by Germany.
I am sure that every member of this House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, for the unwearying determination which he displays in endeavouring to stop every loophole whereby Germany might evade the disarmament clauses of the final settlement. The loophole on which he has cast his bull's-eye to-day is certainly not one that we wish to neglect; but frankly I am not so concerned about the extent of the danger as he is, nor am I entirely convinced that the method which he proposes for dealing with it is the right one, but perhaps this is because the noble Lord and I attach somewhat different meanings to the word "science." I, and I think most of my colleagues, draw a distinction between pure science and its applications, which we prefer to describe as engineering. Now in pure science, from whose discoveries of course new methods in engineering often—indeed ultimately always—derive, Germany, far from being ahead, is in my view definitely behind the leading Allied Powers. Forty, thirty or indeed twenty years ago this was not true. The German universities could vie with any centres of learning in the world. But when they decided to expel all the Jews and the half-Jews and quarter-Jews or anybody who had married a member of one of these unhappy categories, it was amazing what an exodus occurred.
Göttingen, for instance, which had led the world in my own subject of physics and in mathematics, sank within a year below the level of even a second-rate uni-

255
versity, and the same sort of thing happened in almost all the university laboratories in Germany. The Nazis, of course, retaliated by pillorying modern physics as a Jewish excrescence on the true Aryan outlook and promoting good party members with a smattering of the subject to the vacant posts. As a result, not only has the subject made no progress, but very few young men capable of lifting it again to a civilized level have been trained.
It may be asked, as I think Lord Vansittart suggested, what about the various new weapons the Germans have produced, their Radar and other devices with which we have become only too painfully well acquainted. It is, I think, fair to say that not one of these weapons involved any new scientific principle. They were creditable engineering achievementh very suitable to the purpose for which they were intended, but nothing more. The reason for this is quite simple. Despite their failure to appreciate learning and their preference for the coarse, rude material aspects of life, the Nazis had enough sense to realize the importance of engineering. German engineering has for long been of a very high standard, due, I believe, largely to their methods of training. They have long realized that engineering cannot be treated just as an appendage in an ordinary university. All the ancillary subjects have to be taught with a bias towards technical applications. When the Nazis came into power there were no fewer than ten Politechnica with 1,600 professors and lecturers and 20,000 students. These Politechnica ranked in every way as equal to the universities, their degrees counted socially and otherwise as of equal status, and nobody who was aiming at an engineering degree would have dreamt of going anywhere else. Arriving from school with a sound knowledge of elementary mathematics, physics and chemistry, it is not surprising that engineers of the highest possible grade were turned out in vast numbers after three or four years of this intensive training.
Whether the crude materialistic outlook we deplore in Germany is in any way connected with this type of education I need not examine, but there is no doubt that they produce in this way large numbers of men capable of turning their hands to any technical problem and providing
256
an adequate and very often an ingenious solution to it. Take, for instance, the case of Radar. Everybody had known for fifty years that a metal object scatters electro-magnetic waves. When it became urgent to detect aircraft at night many nations applied this principle to the problem, and Radar naturally resulted. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested, that our Radar is ahead of the Germans', but it would have been strange indeed if the very competent German engineers had not produced something workable, and indeed, as our air crews would agree, something by no means despicable.
I venture these preliminary observations because I think they have some bearing on the Motion brought before us by the noble Lord. He wishes us to prohibit "the use by Germany of any scientific discovery or invention considered dangerous to the safety of mankind." At what stage would the scientific committee have been expected to intervene, say, in the case of wireless waves? When Clerk Maxwell predicted them more than sixty years ago; or when Hertz proved then existence a few years later; or when Marconi showed that they could be put to commercial use; or when they were employed to save ships at sea at the beginning of this century; or when they gave us broadcasting twenty years ago? It is very difficult when a new discovery is made to foresee whether it will be used at all and, if so, whether it will be beneficial or dangerous to mankind. Who would have forecast when Elster and Geitel found—in 1887, I think it was—that a negatively charged plate of zinc lost its power under the influence of ultra-violet light, that this would have any practical importance? And who could have foreseen whether the beneficial developments would outweigh the harmful ones? On the one hand, of course, the talking films, which many low-brows at any rate would be sorry to forgo, derived from this particular discovery; on the other hand, this discovery lies at the root of almost every modern instrument for measuring the velocity of shells or bullets, a knowledge of which contributes greatly to the improvement of guns and rifles. Such instances could be multiplied indefinitely, but I hope I have said enough to show that this question is a very difficult one, which it is impossible to answer out of hand.

257
But I am anxious not to leave the impression that we do not realize its importance. The noble Lord last year made in this House the important suggestion that scientists should be associated with planning our methods for controlling German industry. His Majesty's Government appointed a committee of scientists not only to advise about this but also to consider the whole question of the future of German scientific research. I am told that their preliminary conclusions will shortly be ready, and the Government will certainly give the greatest weight to them. But obviously these proposals must be discussed with our Allies, who have ideas of their own on these subjects, and we hope that a common policy will be agreed. For some time now a scientific and technical staff has been attached to the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force—your Lordships will recognize Shaef under this imposing title—and they are there in order to examine and control German activities in these fields.
All German activities, including, of course, their scientific work, are and will be subject to a control by the occupying Powers exercised through the Control Commission. I am confident that so long as the control is maintained there will be little to fear from the recrudescence of German science or the misapplication of scientific discoveries. As to the long-term control, it would, I think, be premature for His Majesty's Government to undertake at this moment to make any specific proposals to the Allies to be embodied in the final peace terms. It is difficult to-day to form any impression of what Germany will look like when peace comes to be signed and what kind of permanent control will be the most convenient and effective. But the Government most certainly intend to ensure that scientists will continue to play their full part not only in disarming Germany but in guarding against any future dangers from that quarter. The long-term arrangements for preventing German secret rearmament have many aspects. The control of scientific research is only one of them and clearly all the controls must be worked out so as to fit altogether to form a coherent whole. I hope I have said enough to convince the noble, Lord that our objectives are the same and that we fully intend to take such steps as may be found most efficacious to achieve the aims
258
he has in mind, even though I am riot able to promise to-day to adopt the exact measures he has proposed. I trust, therefore, he will be satisfied with this assurance, and in the circumstances will not press the Motion on the Paper.
3.20 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his support. One part of my proposals he seemed to think a little too idealistic and I therefore would just like to say a few words explaining it in a little greater detail. It would obviously be no good at all preventing the Germans from developing lethal weapons at home if they could get them from abroad very easily. Your Lordships will remember that after the last war, for example, Krupps took immediate refuge in Bofors in Sweden, and that during the pre-war period Doenitz established an experimental submarine station in Spain and other makers of lethal devices resorted to the Netherlands, and so on. It would be no good whatever preventing manufacture of these things in Germany if they could get them elsewhere.
Lord Strabolgi mentioned that there had been 40,000 applications for patents in the United States. That is perfectly true. That happens to be an Allied country. But during the past year there were 8,000 similar applications in Sweden alone, and if you are going to prevent the Germans from getting, either from Allied or neutral countries, the same kind of devices which we shall be endeavouring to stop them developing at home, it follows that the Allies and neutral countries, in consulting whether those devices shall be permitted, will have to reveal those secrets to each other. That is where my proposal is a practical one. They would have to do that to enforce the prohibition in Germany. It follows automatically. That is very different from the impression I perhaps erroneously conveyed to the noble Lord that I wished those secrets all to be published to the world. I think there must be international consultation on them; that will follow automatically.
Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said, I naturally should accept entirely his definition of the distinction between science and engineering. I also should not wish for a moment to challenge his description of the very low level to which the Germans have debased their

259
science. On the other hand, it has produced some exceedingly unpleasant and lethal surprises. I also fully understand that on a very complicated subject like this the noble Lord cannot give me an answer offhand as to whether the specific measure that I have been recommending will be adopted or not. I am quite content that he should bring it to the attention of the Government as a very important recommendation among many others; and, as I pointed out when speaking earlier, the same recommendation is going to be made to other Allied Governments. Therefore this proposal, having thus been put into the pool, will come to their conjoint knowledge. If he will assure me to-day that it will receive full attention from the competent authorities, I should be the last person to press him to give a decision "off the bat" to-day. If I am correct in my interpretation, I shall therefore have great pleasure in withdrawing my Motion, reserving to myself naturally the right to revert to the subject again at some later date in the hope of being able to elicit some more definite answer.
LORD CHERWELL: I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance that this will be brought before the competent authorities.
LORD VANSITTART: In that case I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Motion to-day.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TREATMENT OF HOSTILE GERMANS.
3.24 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what it is proposed to do when Germans take hostile action in areas under British control; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate my noble friend Lord Woolton in becoming Lord President of the Council, and may I also say I welcome it from the national point of view? Under the Lord President come the three great research departments of Industrial and Scientific Research, Medical Research and Agricultural Research. Some of the Lord Presidents have not been very much interested in those subjects, but I am quite certain that my
260
noble friend is interested in them and will give them all the support and assistance which they will so much need in the days to come.
I need not detain your Lordships long over the Motion I have put upon the Paper. From the Press it would appear that at present the Germans are being very docile in their ways and are giving no trouble to Allied troops, but I have heard reports from those who are serving at the front that that is not quite universal even now and that some Germans are beginning to be somewhat complacent and, in one or two cases, even cheeky. I am one of those who expect that the occupation of Germany will go on for a very long time indeed, and therefore it is quite impossible that there will be no incidents during that long time of the occupation of Germany by British and other Allied troops. Now when any hostile act took place in the countries which Germany overran, Germany took hostages, and when an incident occurred she shot them or, in some cases, she even wiped out a Whole village and its inhabitants, as she did at Lidice. Of course that is quite impossible for the Allies; we cannot do anything of that kind.
Are we, then, to do nothing? Are we to allow British troops to be shot and British military equipment to be damaged? Of course, where the instigator is caught then the answer is perfectly simple: while Germany remains under military law no doubt the perpetrator will be summarily shot and any house from which he snipes will be destroyed. Similarly, when the civil administration comes into being I imagine that there, again, the perpetrator, when caught, will be tried and will be given a very severe punishment. But what if the perpetrator is not caught? Supposing somebody murders one of our men or cuts the tyres of our vehicles in the place where they are parked at night, are we then to do nothing at all? I suggest that if we do nothing the Germans, so far from thinking that that is kindliness, will simply look upon it as weakness and those incidents will increase very greatly in number. Then what are we to do?
May I make a suggestion to your Lordships? I am taking a case of which perhaps some of your Lordships would not approve—the time of the Black-and-Tan trouble in Ireland. A young officer in the Regular Army was sent with his

261
platoon to a town and was there quartered. He sent for the leading Sinn Feiners and said to them: "I am not the least interested in your politics and I have nothing whatever to do with them. I am simply sent here to keep order, and order I am going to keep. If any act is perpetrated against either me or my men or against any Government property, I shall burn three of your houses, and I shall settle which those houses are to be when the time comes." Nothing happened for some days, and then the constabulary barracks were set on fire and destroyed. The next day that young officer walked down with his platoon to the Sinn Fein Club. He sent a party inside. They piled the furniture on the billiard table and set fire to it and stood round until it was destroyed. The Sinn Feiners came and complained bitterly about the action he had taken, and his reply was: "I warned you I should destroy three houses and you are very lucky to have had only one destroyed. The next time it happens it will be three." The result of that drastic action was that there was not a sign of any kind of breaking of the law in that town until the platoon was withdrawn. They had absolute peace and orderliness and no further incident occurred. But see what happened. The Government of that day threatened that young officer with court martial, and he very nearly was court martialled.
Now I suggest that the same sort of action—three houses to be destroyed—should be the punishment proclaimed as being that which we shall inflict in Germany in any case where we do not manage to catch the perpetrator himself. Your Lordships will realize that the German population will, in many cases, know who the perpetrator was. In other cases they will know that a stranger has come into the area, a man about whom there are considerable doubts, possibly a previous S.S. man or one of those Hitler youths who have imbibed the doctrines of Nazism since they were tiny tots. They will know that that man is there for mischief. Are they going to tell the Allied forces of a stranger whom they had better investigate as appearing in their area or are they going to house him and take his side? If, my Lords, it is realized that the punishment will come on them, on any one of them and they do not know which it will be, then they will notify our authorities that they had better look up
262
a certain individual or a certain house and make the necessary inquiries to see that all is well. Then they will be on our side and those instances will be few; but if we do not do something of that kind those instances are likely to be many.
I speak to both sides in the House in this matter. As I said, I am one of those who hope that Germany will be occupied by the Allied forces for a very long time to come, longer than even the youngest of your Lordships will see brought to an end during his lifetime. Therefore it may be within that long period that Labour might find itself in power. They, too, I suggest have got to take this drastic action. It is for the Government themselves to declare that that is the policy of the Government. It is not fair to leave it to the military authorities or those who are controlling Germany at the time. They may feel that they will be put in exactly the same position as that young officer and threatened with court martial. I submit to your Lordships that if it is made quite clear to Germany now that the policy of His Majesty's Government is that any action which is taken against British troops or British equipment will be severely punished in some such way as I have said, then those instances will be few, but if it is merely said that that must be left to the military authorities on the spot I submit to your Lordships that that is not really taking a full sense of responbility. I go further and say that that would be lacking in courage because that may mean that not the lives of those in the British Government but the lives of British troops, who are acting under their orders and fulfilling the duties which are laid upon them by His Majesty's Government, will be imperilled. I submit that what I state in my Motion is necessary in order that Germany realize that she has been beaten, and that she has to be dealt with with severity although with justice. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
3.34 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, your Lordship's will allow me in the first place I am sure to thank the noble Earl for the very kindly things he said at the beginning of his speech when he welcomed me to an office he himself has adorned. If he will allow me to say so, it was his influence when he was Lord President of the Council and was interested in scien-

263
tific research that first helped me so considerably when I was Minister of Food to use the scientific resources of this Government. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the welcome he gave me and I hope I shall fulfil the duties of the office as adequately as he did.
As to the subject raised to-day, I am not quite sure whether I am going to give complete satisfaction to the noble Earl. I thought I was going to be able to do so until I heard his speech. Quite obviously I cannot from these Benches deal with hypothetical questions as to what might happen. Let me say this, however, that there is no tendency and no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of any softening regarding the treatment of Germans, particularly of Germans who as he indicated may proceed to try to inflict damage on British troops. The instrument of surrender governs the relations of the Allied authorities with Germany. It in no way hampers the Allies in dealing with such cases as the noble Earl has in mind. The terms of surrender empower the Allied representatives in the case of the failure of the German authorities or of the German people to fulfil the obligations imposed upon them to take whatever action is considered necessary. The Allied authorities have therefore a completely free hand. They are restricted only by the usages and customs of war which we have observed throughout the war. The Allied authorities will, therefore, be as free to deal with the situation envisaged by the noble Earl as any military commander is in the midst of battle. I hope that that reply will satisfy your Lordships. I hope it will satisfy the noble Earl too, but I am not quite sure that it will. All I can say is that that is as far at this stage as I can go.
3.36 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think on the whole I am satisfied with my noble friend's answer. It depends very much on what is meant by the "usages of war." That is a very elastic term, as all your Lordships know. But I trust that it will be made quite clear to the German people that that is also the policy of His Majesty's Government and of His Majesty's Opposition as well, and that it will be made clear in the speeches to be made in various places throughout the country in future. I imagine there are no Papers to be laid and I only put that
264
down in order that I might have the right of reply. Therefore with your Lordships' leave I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on February 28 last discharged and the Bill committed.
JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the one hundred and seventy-sixth Volume of the Journals, 7th and 8th George VI, 1943–44, with an Index, was ready for delivery; read and ordered to lie on the Table, and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journal have been delivered.