Lords Sitting of 3 July 1946

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being dispensed with to allow the Consideration of the Commons' Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments to the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Bill to have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

BORROWING (CONTROL AND GUARANTEES) BILL.
Order of the Day for Consideration of Commons' Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments read.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill (87) as first printed for the House of Lords.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ("may") insert ("during the period of five years from the passing of this Act")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they deem it necessary that the powers conferred by Clause One of the Bill should be permanent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON had given Notice that he would move,
That this House doth not insist on this amendment but proposes the following amendment in lieu thereof:
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert "where the aggregate of the amount of money borrowed under the transaction and of any other amounts so borrowed by the same person in the previous twelve months (including any period before the passing of this Act) exceeds ten thousand pounds."
92
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. This Amendment is designed—and I hope it will satisfy your Lordships—in order to make it clear that there is no desire or intention to interfere with smaller transactions. It was pointed out in the discussion in this House with considerable force that as the Bill was so drafted, although it was not going to be so used, it might include the figures of small transactions, apart from the fact that in the Order in Council there would be a limit of £50,000 fixed, with certain qualifications attaching to it. But we were impressed by the fact that it was desirable to make clear that we did not contemplate that there should be any interference with the ordinary small and fair-sized transactions which go on. Accordingly, in order to meet that point, I propose this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on this amendment but proposes the following amendment in lieu thereof:
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert ("where the aggregate of the amount of money borrowed under the transaction and of any other amounts so borrowed by the same person in the previous twelve months (including any period before the passing of this Act) exceeds ten thousand pounds.")—(Viscount Addison.)
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the statement he has made. I was not myself in the House during the earlier part of this distressing controversy, but as your Lordships know the reason why this House desired—and I think rightly desired—to limit the period of the Bill to five years, was that they thought the scope of the Bill was so wide that it should be further considered by Parliament at a comparatively early date. That was really the whole motive which was behind the action of the House. It was not a wish to be cantankerous but a perfectly genuine and sincere view. Unfortunately I understand that members in another place have not shared our opinion, but I am very glad, and I am sure all noble Lords are glad, to feel that the Government themselves take the view that it is undesirable to bring very small or even comparatively small

93
transactions within the scope of this Statute. Indeed, they have assured us that it was never their intention in practice to do that. As I think my noble friend Viscount Simon pointed out earlier with such force, it is obviously unwise to put provisions into an Act of Parliament when you do not intend to apply them in practice. Therefore the Government very wisely, if I may say so with all deference, have decided to limit this Statute to transactions over £10,000 in any one year. I do not pretend that we are entirely satisfied with this new Government Amendment. We should have infinitely preferred the figure to be £50,000. That was the figure which was suggested, and we believe it to be a perfectly fair one. But it is, I understand, agreed that the figure of £50,000 shall find a place in the Order issued under the Bill. I am quite certain that this House will not wish to press the matter further, and I am personally very glad that some acceptable compromise has been found on this very thorny point.
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, is very wise, if I may say so, not to ask the House to insist upon our original Amendment—and that on general political and constitutional grounds. But it is rather straining the matter: to suggest that the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has anything very much to do with the one that the House of Lords put in, during the Committee stage here. Those of us—and I was one—who supported that Amendment, did so because we thought it wrong that legislation of this kind should be passed in perpetuity. We thought that the powers given in the Bill were exceedingly drastic, and that the matter should come back to Parliament to be reviewed at the end of five years, as emergency legislation in general, passed during the war is to be limited to a period of that sort.
Now the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has moved an Amendment "in lieu" of the one with which the House of Commons has disagreed. What is the meaning of the expression "in lieu"? If it means that one amendment is rejected, and that another amendment altogether is inserted, it is true that we now have one before us "in lieu" of
94
another. But if it is suggested that an alternative method is being adopted for attaining the same purpose, that is certainly not the case. We asked that perpetuity should be changed to five years. The Government says that the £50,000 limit to be imposed by Regulation is to be supplemented by a £10,000 limit to be imposed by Statute. It is a crazy kind of arithmetic that would say "As perpetuity is to five years, so is £50,000 to £10,000." The two really have no relation to one another. The fact of the mater is that the Government have made a nice, pleasant, conciliatory gesture to the House which the House gracefully accepts—and they are quite right to do so. But it rather brings to mind the formula which is often used in returning thanks for a somewhat disappointing present: "It is not the value of the gift which matters, but the kind thought that inspired it."
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to say, for myself, that I do not agree with some of the remarks that have fallen from the lips of my noble friend Viscount Samuel. I suppose that few people listened to the rather long speech which I delivered on this matter and still fewer remember it, but the main point on which I supported the Amendment to confine the proposed legislation to five years was that I objected so strongly —I might almost say so violently—to the provision that all borrowing of money in Great Britain was to be subjected to Orders which might be made by Government officials. That was a thing which I thought was an absolutely monstrous extension of what I described as the habit of legislating by delegation to Government officials. Therefore I do not feel in the least satisfied with what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said. On the other hand, the Government have largely if not entirely removed the objectionable part of the clause relating to the borrowing of money in Great Britain. I feel no compunction whatever in saying that I welcome this as an Amendment which removes one of the principal reasons for wishing to limit the duration of this legislation to five years.
For my own part, I think, there is no worse idea of legislation than that it should take place by delegation to Government servants without any limitation of their powers, except such as the Minister may

95
choose to impose. I would maintain that with the greatest strength against any argument that can be put in favour of such an idea. I cited before the opinions of eminent jurists on the subject. They are all at one in the feeling that if you are going to delegate legislation to Government servants, as you may sometimes have to do, there should always be a provision by which the courts can be invoked to say that the legislation by Order in that particular case is ultra vires. Therefore, although like the Leader of the Opposition I would have preferred the figure£50,000, which is a nobler figure than £10,000, I am very grateful. I hope that what has been done will show that this House at any rate is always going to set itself against legislation of this kind unless a proper limit is imposed.
2.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would add one word to endorse wholeheartedly what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has just said. When we were debating this clause all my opposition was based on the great principle that you ought not to put into an Act of Parliament wider powers than you wish to exercise. That is indeed the whole force of the Report on Delegated Legislation and Ministers' Powers. It was held that obviously there must be delegated legislation but one of the rules which was laid down was that there ought not to be put into an Act of Parliament clauses delegating to Ministers powers far wider than those which it is intended to use. Speaking for myself, and for those noble Lords on whose behalf I spoke during previous debates, I would emphasize that the thing that mattered intensely was that the delegated powers given in the Act should bear reasonable relation to the intention to exercise those powers. As regards the time limit, whatever Government happens to be in power in five years time—and I sincerely hope that it will not be the same Government—will have a perfectly simple course open to them. They can abstain from using the power; they can let the Act fall into desuetude, or they can repeal the Act. I would endorse what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham has said, that delegation should bear reasonable relation to the powers which it is intended to use. That is now put in terms into the Bill. I know that £10,000 was the figure which used to
96
operate during the war. It was then raised to £50,000. An undertaking has now been given that unless it is absolutely essential to go below £50,000 that shall be the figure. I am glad that the House, with the full assent of the Government, has decided that we shall maintain the right principle in regard to delegated legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill returned to the Commons.

UNION OF SHERRIFDOMS ORDER, 1946.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on June 5 last, be approved.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTIONS IN POLAND.
2.55 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, whether under the terms of recognition of the present non-constitutional Provisional Government of Poland, any requirement as to completely free elections was included, and whether they are able to say how soon such free elections are to be held; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realize that it may be thought that the subject of my Motion might have been better left until next week when the whole matter of foreign policy is to be dealt with. I realize, also, that it is customary for such matters to be raised on Motion by members of the Front Bench. But the circumstances of the Parliamentary timetable are such that there have been several changes and I regard this matter as of such importance that I think it deserves special attention. Had the Parliamentary timetable not caused changes several other noble Lords who wished to take part in the debate would have been able to speak, notably the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, whose consistent friendship for the cause of Poland is of long standing. Unfortunately the noble Earl is prevented by his public duties in Scotland from being here to-day. It may be contended that to raise this subject now on the grounds of

97
expediency may also lead to a disservice rather than a service, and it may also be said that the time is inopportune.
I have confidence, however, that the subject of free elections will attract the sympathy of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who is, I understand, to reply. His Liberal principles over so long a period under successive Governments have so consistently led him to light for democracy, for Parliamentary representation and tree expression, that I feel sure he will not be tempted in replying to me to say, as might be said by ethers, that to raise this matter at this moment, in this form, and in tins place, may be considered mischievous. But I repeat again, the situation in several parts of Europe, and in Poland in particular, is such that this denial of the right of free expression at the ballot is a matter of importance to the world at large and to this country in particular. I am aware that the Polish Government includes Mr. Mikolajczyk, whose presence in the Government was insisted upon by the British Government. It must be assumed, therefore, that he carries personally the complete confidence of His Majesty's Government. Further I believe that the British Government and the British Ambassador in Poland are particularly well informed of the situation in Poland. I hope that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will be able to take the House and the country into his confidence and that he will be explicit in conveying to the world at large the information which is unquestionably in their possession.
It is understood that the Opposition to the existing Government in Poland are being treated as enemies of their country. Viscount Addison, at least, would never be one to say that even the Tory Party were enemies of their country although the Daily Herald may make reference to the fact that Lord Woolton has been put at the head of the organization labelled "Tory Party." A statement has recently been made by the Attorney-General on this matter. I would also refer to a statement made in this House on November 28 of last year, when Lord Pethick-Lawrence stated that it was a definite commitment that elections should be held in the first half of 1946, these elections, I understand, to be free and unfettered and on a basis of universal suffrage, with the secret ballot. If that is a commitment, why has it not been more forcibly stressed? I
98
should like to say at once that I recognize, and the country as a whole will recognize, that the Foreign Secretary is equally concerned, and we believe that he is wholeheartedly trying to do his best. I suggest that a further expression of opinion from this House may be of assistance in the general world situation at the present moment.
I would ask the indulgence of the House to quote a recent statement, on June 24, by the Government:
" The Foreign Secretary is gravely concerned by the delay in holding elections in Poland, and by the signs that this delay is being used to undermine one of the principal parties permitted by Polish law."
I quote two other statements of Mr. Bevin:
"Britain is denounced from the very mouth she is attempting to feed. The acid test is when will she carry out the solemn pledge given at Potsdam to have early and free elections? "
That certainly seems to be a conclusive statement. Again, I quote Mr. Bevin:
"I am concerned about reports of recent developments in Poland, which indicate an increasing tendency on the part of the Provisional Government to proceed to extreme methods likely to prejudice in advance the conditions in which the elections will be held."
If I may again have the indulgence of the House, I cannot refrain from quoting Mr. Churchill, if he was correctly quoted. Mr. Churchill, after all, has been familiar with all these negotiations in striving to present to the Polish ńation the freedom which the Atlantic Charter intended she should have.
"Poland desires free expression of her national will. Poland is held in strict control by a Soviet-dominated Government who dare not have a free election under the observation of the representatives of the three four great Powers."
I would here interject that I am informed that there is only one British representative of a British newspaper resident in Poland. All the others, including the representative of The Times, are Polish nationals. The Sunday Times is the only newspaper with a British representative. Because that is the only English source of authority we have, I attach particular importance to the despatches which we receive from their correspondent. I quote from the most recent one, namely that of last Sunday:
"The persecution of the Polish Peasant Party and the numerous arrests still taking

99
place have removed all possibility that Poland's referendum to-day will be free an unfettered."
I quote again from the Sunday Times:
"Mr. Mikolajczyk states that he would never have agreed to the referendum, had he known at the time that his members were to be excluded from the voting commissions."
What is holding up those free and unfettered elections?—Soviet policy; Soviet bayonets. We know from despatches, which we all have read, that the Soviet Army and the Soviet Commissars are in complete domination of the whole of the administration of Poland. I will not weary the House in trying to trace the evolution from a Communistic Lublin Government to the existing situation in Poland. But that situation is one of frankly totalitarian militarism. There is no trace of a democratic basis. It is naked and undisguised Communism. Mr. Mikolajczyk's Peasant Party has been subjected to the suppression which has been widely quoted in the Press, to which I have just made reference.
I cannot make any reference to the elections without referring also to the referendum which is now being held. It should be remembered that a referendum is not provided for in the Polish constitution. In my Motion reference is made to the non-constitutional provisional Government of Poland. I suspect that some people may have the opinion that that is an improper manner in which to describe it. But a Government which, by questionable evolution, has attained its present position, and is holding it under the conditions which it is, would not, if it were constitutional, proceed on unconstitutional lines. Again, I must ask the patience of the House to allow me to remind your Lordships that Mr. Mikolajczyk himself has explained that his representatives were excluded from the appropriate local committees. I could quote here the American Press, where it says, without going into great detail, that these votes on this referendum have been carried out in a highly improper manner. I would appeal to the human sympathy of the House to understand the position. When a people are called upon to express in a vote a "Yes" or a "No" to three questions, and it is known that a "Yes" may result in political immunity and that a "No" will unquestionably bring victimization, it is only human to expect
100
that the results of the referendum would not be a free expression of opinion.
It is not my aim to attempt to stir sentiment on this matter, but it is logic to attempt to produce some comforting reassurance to those struggling in Poland. I do not need to remind the House of the Poles' service to the Allied cause, and the strength of the Catholic Church in Poland, but I must refer for a moment to a wider field. This question of free elections is not confined to Poland only. I introduce this other note only in order to strengthen the point I am making. In Rumania, too, the Government has pressed for a statement regarding free elections. The report of the Rumanian Government to His Majesty's Government has been described as unsatisfactory. In a Note the Rumanian Government have been asked to take immediate steps to implement their previous assurances. I hope the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will give some assurance that His Majesty's Government in a similar manner in regard to Poland propose to take steps which they appear already to have taken with regard to Rumania.
Is there any need any longer to exercise discretion or to pull punches? Reticence and subservience seem appropriately a thing of the past. The issue is now this: is it to be an extension of the collectivist system over Europe, or the free or risk-taking enterprise systems? Those two systems just cannot mix. I think it is the duty of this country to expose Soviet aims clearly. They are not backward in indicating to the world their intentions and I respect their realism. I ask your Lordships to reflect for a moment on the ground of self-interest from the British industrialist's point of view. We seek to expand our exports on which we live and from which we eat. If a progressively increasing area of the world's surface is to go under an economic system to which we, subject to tariffs even, are not to have free access, then we are at a great disadvantage industrially. I speak with no hostility to the Soviets. This is a frank expression of my own beliefs, just as the Soviets frankly express their policy. I have always tried to give support to their system, as far as it is concerned internally.
I believe the attitude of the United States as clearly expressed is what ours should be, and they have already expressed their anxieties on the present position. I see in the Paris issue of the

101
New York Tribune on Sunday Mr. Mikolajczyk is quoted as saying in regard to the referendum that if similar suppressions were employed in the elections when they are held he would regard it as a breach of the Yalta Agreements in which America, Britain and Soviet Russia were committed to ensuring to the Poles a free and unfettered election. It is on those grounds that I urge the Government to be more explicit in their statements than they have hitherto been. If condemnation of the situation in Poland today is justified there should be more resolution in the pronouncements. I suggest that moral issues are involved. Posterity will judge this generation by its behaviour towards a loyal Ally and will unquestionably condemn a shirking of our responsibilities. I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, The noble Lord who moved this Motion said, and I think rightly, that it was a good thing that we should consider this particular problem of Poland apart from the general scope of foreign policy which your Lordships will discuss next wéek. I do not think it can be held that this Motion is either mischievous or inopportune, but having gone so far with the noble Lord, I feel bound to dissociate myself with the attacks—indirect attacks I agree—which he has made in connexion with this Polish problem on the Government of the Soviets and above all I disagree with what he said about Soviet bayonets. What I do feel is that the Soviet Republics are in this matter because they were a party to the Yalta Agreement. If your Lordships will allow me for one moment, I would like to remind you that on 1st March, 1945, there was a debate in your Lordships' House on the decisions taken at Yalta, and the Polish problem featured very largely in those discussions.
I need not bring to your Lordships' recollection that the basis of the Yalta Agreement as regards Poland was that the then Provisional Government, which was at that time known as the Lublin Committee, should be reorganized by the admission from inside and outside Poland of democratic and anti-Nazi elements; that when that Provisional Government was formed it should be pledged to hold free elections on the basis of universal suffrage and a secret ballot, and that at those elections all parties which were
102
democratic and anti-Nazi would have the right of putting forward their Cabinets. In that debate I ventured to point out that while the declaration and the principles laid down at the Yalta Conference were admirable, the touchstone would lie in their execution. I think it is in that light we have got to consider the problem to-day. I suppose in March, 1945, all your. Lordships, and I include the noble Viscount who at that time was the Leader of the House, thought that after some six or nine months, not only would the new Provisional Government be formed, but the free elections would have been held, and therefore Poland would have a Government representing the freely expressed wishes of its people. Alas, those elections have not taken place.
It is true that the Provisional Government has been established, but I would remind your Lordships that in spite of most solemn pledges which were given, not only to this country but also to the United States and the Soviet Republic, at the Yalta Conference, the elections have not yet taken place. We are now assured by the Polish Government that they will materialize in the autumn. Personally I fail completely to understand the reason for the delay. It may be the case that our expectations that they would be held about six or nine months after the Yalta, Conference were over-optimistic. There had to be time allowed for a more normal situation to prevail in Poland and for those Poles who wanted to return to their country to be able to do so. But I would remind your Lordships that the Provisional Government has thought that conditions were sufficiently stable for a referendum to be held, and if a referendum could be held, surely elections could be held too. There was no reason therefore to postpone the execution of the pledges which were given to us, and I have come to the conclusion that in the background of the minds of the members of the Provisional Government there must be some unavowed motives. I fear that they desire to make certain of the success of some Parties which are favoured by the majority of the members of the Provisional Government and to secure by methods, not of peaceful persuasion but of intimidation, the gradual or even the total disappearance of any Party which opposes them.

103
As the noble Lord pointed out, in another place His Majesty's Government have expressed grave concern at what has happened in Poland. I think (and I hope your Lordships will agree with me) that it is fitting that we should give to His Majesty's Government the fullest support in any representations they may make to ensure the speedy fulfilment of those solemn undertakings which the Provisional Government renewed in January last. I do not attach too much importance to the enormous amount of propaganda which I suppose the majority of your Lordships receive on this question, but I do not think there can be any doubt at all that great efforts are being made by the Provisional Government, by intimidation and even by resort to terrorism, to diminish the numbers of, and to eliminate, if possible, before the elections the Party of Mr. Mikolajczyk. Yet Mr. Mikolajczyk is a great Polish patriot who is in favour of large social reforms and who also has expressed himself as supporting to the fullest extent the most friendly relations between Poland and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. But he is not a Communist, and hence, I fear, these efforts to which I have referred and which are a distinct, though an indirect, breach of pledges already given.
I want to emphasize that because I am convinced that many of the troubles in Europe to-day arise from the fact that Governments enter into agreements and give pledges in order to secure temporary advantages when they have in reality little, if any, intention of carrying them out once those advantages are obtained. Action of such a character can only be disastrous in international affairs, where good faith and adherence to the plighted word are essential if we are to have a decent world order. This brings me to a secondary point to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention in passing, namely, the recent visit of the Attorney-General to Poland. I know, because it has been said in another place, that that visit took place with the approval of the Prime Minister, but nevertheless I cannot but doubt whether it was wise. The Provisional Government is refusing to execute its obligation towards this country and towards others; yet a distinguished member of His Majesty's Government visits Poland. I am sure his intentions were excellent, but I am equally
104
convinced (and here I really do speak from experience) that such a visit lends itself to serious misrepresentation.
It will be said in Poland and elsewhere that the British Government cannot attach very much importance to the execution of pledges because one of their important members has visited Poland, and if they did, such a visit would not have taken place. I fear very much that what the Attorney-General is reported in the Press to have said will only add to that misrepresentation. It is stated in the Press that he said the British Government had not the slightest desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Poland. Of course, that is quite true in one sense, but I would like to ask the Government whether they do not desire that the intimidation of the Peasant Party should cease. That is, I am sorry to say, interference in the internal affairs of Poland, but I want to ensure that the elections, whenever they may take place, will be free and independent. In my view, the assurances given by the Attorney-General are not easily reconcilable, even in our minds (and certainly not in the minds of many Poles), with the admirable policy which has been laid down by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
I want to make one last point. In the debate on the Yalta Agreement I asked the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, whether there would be some outside supervision to see that there was real liberty at the elections and that no coercion was used. The noble Viscount replied, on behalf of the Government, that one of the duties of the three Ambassadors to the new Provisional Government would be to report to their respective Governments that the Provisional Government was not abusing its authority either at the time of the elections or at any other time, and further that the Ambassadors would keep an eye on the elections. I doubt whether this in fact will prove to be a sufficient safeguard, but it is something. I should be very glad to be assured that the promise then made still holds good. I want to emphasize this point, because I am very much disturbed at what has been happening as regards the voting at the referendum. Representatives of the Parties are not admitted to the Election Commission, and only those individuals who have been nominated by the administrative authorities

105
take care of the voting. The Peasant Party requested that they should be given representation On the Election Commission but that request was refused. What I fear is that that is really a very had augury for the voting at the elections themselves, and therefore I trust that His Majesty's Government will do all in their power to see that when the elections are held in the autumn (and I hope they will not be again delayed) they are fairly held and that the results are properly recorded. As a final request, I would ask that ultimately a report from His Majesty's Ambassador should be published as to the holding of the elections, the methods and the results.
3.27 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not know what the reply of my noble friend the Leader of the House will be, but, whatever he says, I expect I shall agree with it, and even if I do not agree with it he will persuade me to agree. However, I would not like it to appear that the sentiments we have heard expressed in the two speeches which have so interested your Lordships represent the view of all quarters of this House. It is very easy for my noble friend Lord Barnby and the noble Earl to criticize events in Poland, but think they might at least make some allowance for the tremendous difficulties which that gallant country has gone through. It has been twice fought over in the most devastating war of history; many of its most distinguished and experienced citizens are abroad and refuse to return; it is notoriously short of trained civil servants; it has been mutilated, so to speak, and an immense stretch of formerly German territory has been added to it. The extraordinary transference of population which has taken place is, I suppose, one of the greatest migrations of all history. Over 2,000,000 Poles from east of what used to be called the Curzon Line (the part that has gone to Russia) have been moved to the new territory bounded on the west by the Oder and the Neisse, formerly occupied by 8,000,000 Germans. I suppose that is the greatest migration in the shortest time that has ever taken place, and one which dwarfs the remarkable exchange of population between the Greeks and the Turks which took place after the last war. These things, taken in conjunction with a devastated countryside, a
106
wrecked transport system, and with practically all the harbours along the Baltic not yet working, have produced the most extraordinary difficulties. I think a word of sympathy should go out to the Provisional Government of Poland which, from the information I have received, on the economic side (I leave the political side alone for the moment) is doing an extraordinarily courageous job of reconstruction.
I am told that the way in which the country has again been brought under cultivation is highly satisfactory. Poland to-day is the only country in Europe which has an exportable surplus of coal. I think that is a very remarkable thing, considering all the difficulties through which that country has gone. I dare say there are legitimate grounds for complaint that the elections may have been delayed, but I think there is some excuse for that too. After all, the Conservative Party, so strong in your Lordships' House, was against having elections in this country until after the period of resettlement in Europe. As for referendums, which are now apparently out of favour by noble Lords opposite, it was the leader of the Conservative Party himself who made the suggestion that we should have a referendum in this country after the war, although it was certainly not part of our Constitution.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The noble Lord has misunderstood my point. If you can hold a referendum you have got the machine and you could hold elections to which you are solemnly pledged by treaty.
LORD STRABOLGI: I entirely understood the noble Earl's point, and I entirely disagree with him. A referendum is a series of questions, and it is only a matter of circularising papers. When you hold an election you have to hold meetings and have election addresses, and it is a far more complicated and long-drawn out affair. It is easy to hold a referendum in any country where ordinary normal administration has been re-established, but to hold a fair election—which we all want to see in Poland—does need settled conditions, a restored transport system, and above all, reliable civil servants functioning. The latter is one of their great difficulties in Poland, I understand. All that takes time.

107
I am glad the noble Earl rebuked the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for his left-handed attack on the U.S.S.R. I do beg your Lordships, if we possibly can, to refrain from this continual pin-pricking, whether it is against a Government some of us do not like, say in Poland or Rumania or wherever it may be, or, whether it is, above all, against our great Ally, one of the Big Four, the U.S.S.R. It does no good, and every one of your Lordships with experience will agree. If you want to take action, and you feel you cannot tolerate a policy being pursued by a friendly country, then you can break off diplomatic relations and go to even greater extremes. Just to nag, pin-prick and scold, carries us nowhere at all. The fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, recognizes, Poland is very much under the influence of the Government in Moscow, because it is a neighbour of Russia and because the Russians are extremely nervous of having unfriendly Governments along their borders. We all know that, and there is no dispute about it. In the same way it is suggested that a good deal goes on behind the so-called iron curtain. It is not an iron curtain, and its impenetrability has been greatly exaggerated. Sir Hartley Shawcross managed to get through it all right, and we are told that newspaper correspondents are functioning there.
I was amazed to hear the noble Earl, Lord Perth, complaining that the Attorney-General should go to Warsaw. I think that the more Ministers travel about the better, and the more that goodwill missions could go to these struggling peoples, so recently liberated from the worst tyranny in history, the better. I was astonished that the noble Earl, with his great experience and most distinguished record in the past, should complain because one of His Majesty's Ministers went to the capital of a friendly Government—and I expect him to receive a rebuke from my noble friend the Leader of the House.
With regard to the Russian influence in Poland, of course it exists, and we know it exists in other countries along the Russian borders, and also along their borders in Asia. All the border countries are subject to all the influence that the Moscow Government can bring to bear upon them, just as we use all the influence we can in certain spheres of the
108
world where we consider we have highly strategic or economic interests. Let us face facts. The Russians claim an interest along the borders of their Western frontiers, and they are not prepared to see established there Governments which they consider may be unfriendly. We can only hope that in time these fears and suspicions will be moderated, and I believe they will be. It is a matter which will require great patience, great tolerance, and great forbearance, and it will not be helped by pin-pricking, insults and criticism all the time, whether it is on the wireless, in the newspapers, or in your Lordships' House.
What we might recognize is that the Russians could have something corresponding to the American Monroe Doctrine, and their intention to enforce it if they possibly can. At the time of the Monroe Doctrine, the new-born Republican Government in America was regarded with great suspicion by the old monarchies in Europe, and with great distaste by the majority of people in this country who had not forgiven our former American Colonies for breaking away. That doctrine was regarded with great suspicion at the time, but we now know, after 140 years, that it has been one of the great stabilizing forces for peace in the world. The "hands off" policy with regard to the Latin Americas declared by the then newly-born Union of the United States, has helped the peace and stability of the world for nearly 150 years. Everyone knows that now. Is it not possible to explore the possibility of a policy of recognizing that Russia has a sphere of interest in the Border States from which she has been twice invaded in the lifetime of most of us, and that a Monroe Doctrine there, recognized by the other Powers, might be one of the ways in which this suspicion and hostility that is so delaying the resettlement of Europe could gradually be eliminated?
I throw this idea out to those of your Lordships who are good enough to listen to me. I am certain that the present policy, the present meetings of the representatives of the so-called Big Four, ending in deadlock and trouble and no conclusions, will not solve our present difficulties at all. By some new departure along the lines I have suggested, which are not in any way, and need not be, in conflict with the far greater conception of the United Nations Organization, I believe we will find a more fruitful policy

109
which might bring peace and happiness to these unfortunate States like Poland, who have suffered so much in the past and whose prosperity and friendliness we should all try to cultivate.
3.38 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, may I just say a few words on this subject, because I think we are suffering from a misunderstanding, and we are going to suffer from it more and more unless it is cleared up. We rightly think we have made an agreement, and we are seeing that it is carried out. Do we realize the incredibly different meanings which are given by Russia to democratic elections and to free elections? There was an account given lately of an election in Russia, and I read a report by a very enthusiastic member of the near-Communists in this country, who believes that everything Russia does is perfect, explaining that it was marvellous. None of us would dream of calling it free, but that is what the Russians mean by free elections. None of us—at least I hope not—would dream of calling the Government of Russia democratic. And, therefore, I quite honestly think that there was a frightful misunderstanding on this whole business at Yalta. No matter how much we explain what we mean by democracy and what we mean by free elections, I do not believe that noble Lords will ever, by any representations, get what we should call free elections or what we should call democracy in Poland, or in any of the countries under the influence of Russia. It does not follow, though, that it may not be a good kind of Government for a country in that kind of social condition. But it is nonsense to suppose that conditions are going to be what we should call democratic, or that there are going to be what we should call free elections.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this debate has developed into an interesting and thoughtful discussion on the conception of free elections held by different nations. In that respect, I do not know that I differ from the philosophy of my noble friend who has just spoken. Quite often, in different parts of the word different meanings are attributed to the same word. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Earl and my noble friend sitting behind me said as to the
110
undesirability of discussing a subject of this kind in such a way as to make it an occasion for a general attack on the policy of another Power, especially one of our Allies. I cannot conceive that that would serve any useful purpose. In what I am going to say, I will confine myself to the statement which has been furnished to me of the actual facts of the situation, and the action taken by His Majesty's Government in regard to the matter which is now before us.
Before doing so, however, I will promise the noble Earl that I will convey to my right honourable friend the Attorney-General his admonitions, and I will draw his attention to the statements of the noble Earl which are, of course, on these matters, made with a due sense of high responsibility. With regard to his last point, I did not have notice of it until shortly before the debate to-day, but I may say that I feel sure that such a report will be published in due time. I hope that my noble friend will not take my pledges as going beyond that, at the moment, because I have not had an opportunity to consult my right honourable friend.
It is true that at the Crimea Conference the three major Powers agreed that the Provisional Polish Government formed at Lublin should be reorganized on a broader democratic basis, and it was laid down that the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity thus formed would hold free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot. It was also understood that all democratic and anti-Nazi Parties should have the right to participate. It was further agreed that when such a Government had been properly formed in conformity with these provisions, it would be recognized by His Majesty's Government.
The formation of such a Government was announced in July, 1945, and His Majesty's Government recognized it. In doing so they recalled the provisions of the Yalta Agreement relating to free elections, and the Polish Provisional Government gave an assurance that they accepted those provisions. At Potsdam, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had conversations with M. Bierut, the Chairman of the Praesidium of the Polish National Council, who gave an assurance that it was hoped that elections would be

111
held as provided in the Potsdam Agreement not later than the early part of 1946, and that the electoral procedure would be based upon the rules laid down under the Constitution of 1921. No date, however, has yet been announced for the holding of these elections, and His Majesty's Government have frequently made inquiry as to the reasons for the delay. They have been informed—reference has been made to this in the debate to-day—of the difficulties in Poland which the Government have, quite naturally, to contend with. I can say that the Polish Provisional Government has now given an assurance that the elections will be held in the autumn.
Meanwhile, a referendum has been held in which the electorate have been asked to express their opinion upon the Provisional Government's policy as regards nationalization and land reform, the establishment of Poland's western frontiers, and the question of the abolition of the Senate. In this matter, His Majesty's Government have made it clear that they do not regard the referendum as constituting in any way a substitute for the elections provided for in the Potsdam Agreement. Meanwhile, there have been in recent months many indications, particularly in connexion with the preparations for the recent referendum, that not all the recognized Parties in Poland are allowed to enjoy equal facilities for presenting their case to the electorate. In particular, the Polish Peasant Party, to which reference has been made by all the speakers to-day, the leader of which is M. Mikolajczyk, who joined, as we know, the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity before it was recognized by His Majesty's Government, has been denied the facilities enjoyed by other Parties to publish their views in the Press, to hire halls for political meetings, and in other ways to carry on what we regard as a normal electoral campaign. In addition, a considerable number of members of that Party have been arrested in various parts of Poland, and some of the Party's branch offices have been closed on the ground that they have been in touch with terrorists conducting subversive activities. Similar measures have been taken against the small Christian Labour Party, led by M. Popiel, which, though a recognized Party, is not represented in the present
112
Government. His Majesty's Government have made it plain that they attach importance to the maintenance, pending the holding of free elections, of the original balance of Parties in the Provisional Government. It was on this basis that our recognition was accorded.
The Minister of State, in reply to a question in the House of Commons on June 24, made a statement recalling the undertakings of the Polish Provisional Government, and said that the Secretary of State was gravely concerned at the delay in holding elections in Poland, and at the signs that this delay was being used to undermine one of the principal Parties permitted by Polish law. His Majesty's Government, as one of the parties to the Yalta Agreement, feel bound to take all steps open to them to ensure that the Polish Provisional Government which they recognized on the basis of that Agreement carry out the international obligations which they assumed under it. His Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering unwarrantably in Polish internal affairs, nor are they interested in supporting any one particular political Party against any other. They will, however, continue to do all they can to ensure that all political Parties enjoy equal rights so that the elections may be carried out in conformity with the Potsdam Agreement.
In execution of this policy the Polish Provisional Government were recently informed that before ratifying the financial agreement for settling the outstanding issues over inter-Governmental debts and other questions His Majesty's Government will wish to assure themselves that elections will in fact be held at a given date, and that the electoral law and all other conditions in which the elections will be held, will be such as to fulfil the Crimea Declaration. His Majesty's Government could not consider those conditions to have been complied with if there were indications that measures had been taken to suppress any of the existing political Parties, to hamper their activities, or to place any one or more of those Parties in an unfavourable position by comparison with others as regards freedom of organization or facilities for assembly and public expression. In conclusion, may I say that the text of the agreement to which I have just referred will be laid before Parliament shortly.
3.52 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I appreciate the consideration that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has shown, as he always does in matters raised in this House. I appreciate and recognize the attempt which he has made to convey a good deal to the House but I must say that I feel it very insufficient, and am disappointed that the statement could not have given more encouragement to those who have anxiety about Poland. Before returning to his speech may I deal with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in which he took exception to my reference to Polish armed force. I must ask indulgence to remind your Lordships that it is widely reported that the Polish Army is in a dominant position in Poland. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his emphasis on Mr. Mikolajczyk as a great patriot. His safety is at this moment in great danger because of that, and because he is the nominee of the British Government in the present Government of Poland. I had hoped that the Leader of the House would be a little more resolute in his statement. Lord Strabolgi emphasized the difficulties of holding elections in Poland. I am fully aware of those difficulties. My long intimaey with Poland permits me to visualize distances there, but I venture to think that that is no reason why Government-mobilized transport should be used for some Parties and not for others. In his reproof of myself for being critical of the Soviets I look back with pleasure to the days in the 'twenties when he and I in another place were actively associated in support of the Soviets—to my own disadvantage in my constituency, where I was freely criticized for being pro-Bolshevic.
LORD STRABOLGI: Neither of us was supporting the Soviet Government. We were against intervention.
LORD BARNBY: I must take a different view. My memory may be at fault but my recollection of it is that we then recommended all support to the Soviet Government. The noble Lord suggested that I was insulting to the Soviet Government. That was far from my intention. I say frankly that the Soviets are realists, very clear-cut in their policy to impose the Collectivist system on as large a surface as possible, and they tell the world that they intend to
114
prosecute it. I respect them for it, but I am permitted to differ from it. I cannot let pass the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi's suggestion that there should be a Soviet Monroe Doctrine extending over a vast area of the surface of the world, over countries contiguous in Asia as well as Europe to the Soviets, with an economy closed to our trade in manner conventional with the rest of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, commented on the fact that Soviet understanding of free elections is quite different from ours. Of course it is. Have we heard anything about free elections and secret ballots in Soviet Russia? Certainly we will not criticize their policy in their own territory, but the whole object of this Motion is to emphasize that we do disagree with Soviet action in territory outside their own.
The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, emphasized that His Majesty's Government had no intention of interfering with the internal affairs of Poland, but objection is made to another country interfering with the internal affairs of Poland. He stated that free elections would be held—that is, that His Majesty's Government had received an assurance to this effect—and that all Parties would participate. On his own admission we have this evidence that in the referendum which has just been held certain Parties were suppressed. I suggest that had those elections been held under the supervision of the United States, for instance, they would not have been held in the way they were. I cannot assume that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will be good enough to reply at once to the question that I shall now put, but I hope he will do so a week hence, when he deals with the Motion of my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition. If these elections (to quote the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison) "to be held at a given date" are not held within measurable distance, how long will the recognition of the present Government continue? That recognition, the noble Viscount told the House, was given conditionally upon free unfettered elections with secret ballot being held. I welcome the statement that the referendum is not a substitute for any commitments that the present Polish Government had entered into. From that it follows that when elections are held His Majesty's Government will receive assurances

115
that no Parties will be suppressed. I hope they will achieve this.
I thank your Lordships for your indulgence in listening to these rather extended comments on points in respect of which I seek elucidation from the Leader of the House. I conclude with the hope that there will be full details given with regard to this matter, if not to-day, then next week. On that footing I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNORSHIP OF MALTA.
4.2 p.m.
The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to ask His Majesty's Government on what grounds the time-honoured precedent of appointing an officer of the Fighting Services to the Governorship of Malta has now been departed from; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in introducing the Motion which stands in my name, I wish to disclaim any intention of making a personal attack upon the honourable gentleman who has been appointed Governor of Malta. I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance, but I wish him, as I am sure everyone else in your Lordships' House does, the greatest success in his important office. My criticism of the appointment is based upon the belief that this break with the custom of appointing a distinguished soldier to the Governorship of Malta is to be deplored and that it is a grave mistake and one which has been made at a most inopportune time.
I have alluded in my Motion to the "time-honoured precedent" of a military man holding this appointment. I have not the least doubt that I shall be told in reply that civilians have held this appointment. That may be so, but when I tell your Lordships that for the last sixty years a long succession of distinguished soldiers have held this Governorship, I think your Lordships will agree with me that a custom has been established. It is not my intention to argue that because Malta has had a long line of military Governors in the past, a civilian should never be appointed. On the contrary, I believe a change might be salutary at times. But when a radical change of this sort is made, I contend that the reason should be manifest; otherwise it casts a
116
reflection upon the system that has preceded it. In this case the reason is far from manifest. A study of the present nominee's record shows that outside his professional life as a solicitor he has followed a career of useful public service which does him credit, but it is a record which, with all due respect, could be equalled by hundreds of people up and down the country, and it affords no possible evidence that he is qualified to become the Governor of a politically turbulent Colony, or to command a fortress, or deal with those special new problems which we are told have arisen. I might remind your Lordships that the civil side of the administration of Malta has always been well looked after by a distinguished line of Lieutenant Governors and Chief Secretaries who have been appointed for that particular purpose.
The Maltese, as is natural with most Mediterranean races, take their politics very seriously. Political crises have been common and have followed one another in quick succession, ever since Malta, by her own choice and at her own request, was admitted over 130 years ago to membership of the British Empire. There are three distinct interests to be co-ordinated and they play an important part in the life of the island. There is the civil population, divided, as many civil populations are, into two or three Parties. There is an all-powerful Church, which is naturally inclined to look towards Rome. There are the Services—the Army and the Royal Air Force. There is also the large dockyard, and the establishments connected with these Services, upon which a large proportion of the population of Malta depends for its living. There is, or used to be, a section of opinion which looked to Italy rather than to Britain as their spiritual home. When Mussolini was at the height of his power there was quite a strong Fascist movement in Malta. Black-shirts were to be seen walking about the streets of Valetta. It was largely due to the persistent efforts of Lord Strickland, who was Chief Secretary and afterwards Prime Minister, that Italian propaganda was defeated. I think Lord Strickland never received the credit which was his due for his services in that respect. But all those questions were successfully dealt with.
Fundamentally the Maltese have never wavered in their self-imposed allegiance to

117
the British Crown, a fact which was clearly shown in the recent war, when, under the leadership of two gallant military Governors, they set an example of courage and fortitude to the whole world. Surely, with all these mixed and conflicting interests in this very congested island, it is much better to have at the head of affairs a man who has never been connected with politics but who has a wide experience of men and matters rather than an unknown politician recommended by a Government partly, at least, for political reasons. The very fact that he has been recommended for political reasons might well arouse prejudice in a certain section of the population because they may not share the views of the British Government of the day.
Nor can the new Governor in this case claim a background which would have given him a wide knowledge of world affairs. His career rather has been one of a very parochial nature, inclined to foster a limited outlook, both politically and in general. Are we really asked to believe that not one among the Generals, Admirals and Air-Marshals can be found to fill this appointment, and that, failing them, there is no one trained in the professional Colonial Service who is fit to take it up? Answering a question in another place, the Secretary of State for the Colonies used these words:
"I am not casting any disparaging reflections upon any members of the three Services, but there are many problems with which Malta is confronted at the present time to deal with which it was regarded as necessary to have a civilian Governor."
It is only the restraint which is imposed upon me by your Lordships' House that prevents my expressing my opinion of that assertion in two words. My contention is that this appointment, while it may not cast disparaging reflections upon any individual members of the three Fighting Services, does cast disparaging reflections on the very large body of senior officers of all three Services, as well as on persons trained in the Colonial Service. I do not know how many of your Lordships are well acquainted with Malta, but those of you who are will know that conditions there have at times been turbulent. It would be interesting to know who gave the Government the advice to make this appointment, and what qualifications that individual had for doing so.
Why does the Government choose this particular moment to discredit military officers? I use the term "military" in its widest sense. Why, if a change had to be made, could not someone who had the necessary administrative experience be selected from among the many first-class men in the country who are waiting for something to do? Why could not some such individual be selected to deal with those problems with which no one in the military services or the Colonial Service is deemed fit to cope? Why should the Government choose this particular moment to deprive the Services of what has in the past been regarded as an appointment legitimately looked upon as open to senior officers? God knows, the treatment of our war leaders by the present Government has not been particularly generous. The Peerages awarded to soldiers in this war have been of lower rank and not so numerous as those awarded for similar services in the 1914–1918 war. No baronetcies have been given this time for military services as were given on the last occasion. It is said that the Government disapprove of this particular form of recognition of such services. Perhaps they do. If so, they were going against their principles in creating a baronet the other day. No monetary award has been granted. It used to be said that for such officers there was personal honour and glory. Recognition must be given to them not for what they will do, but for what they have done, and if you do not give them money their services should be recognized in some other tangible form.
I think my noble friend Lord Croft recently made a good suggestion, namely, that the most prominent of our war leaders, instead of being put upon half-pay directly they finish their present appointments, should be allowed to carry on full pay, as in America and in Russia, until the end of their lives. But the Treasury obviously did not like this. The Treasury have gone one better. They have prevented these senior officers from receiving any benefit at all in the recent readjustments in respect of taxation on earned income.
Let me remind your Lordships of the lines:

119
"Our sailors and soldiers we adore
In times of danger, not before.
The danger past, both are requited:
The soldier is forgotten, and the sailor slighted."
You are running true to form. It has always been so. The only difference is that in this case you have started rather earlier than usual. You have slighted the whole of the senior officers of the three Services and of the Colonial Service in order to satisfy the claims of a political supporter who, however worthy, is quite untried and unknown. I beg to move for Papers.
4.11 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I think it is always enlivening to listen to the noble Earl and I find myself on occasions wholly in agreement with him, more particularly on Service matters. I therefore regret the more that on this occasion I really cannot wholly follow his arguments. A great many of the arguments he put forward seem to me to be really against his own case. He gave a description of the situation in Malta with which I am quite certain no one who knows the island would disagree, but that description seemed to me to be further support for the kind of appointment which he is at the moment criticizing. That a military officer has in the past generally been appointed as Governor of Malta is due to historical circumstances. When we acquired Malta, we acquired it as a military station. But the time when we were able to treat it as a military station, and to more or less ignore the inhabitants, their views and their wishes, has passed.
I suggest that a good many of the troubles which the noble Earl referred to have been due to that tendency to treat Malta as a military station rather than as a Colony and, I would remind your Lordships, a Colony inhabited not by backward people but by an extremely lively European people. It is one of the big problems of the present time in our Colonial Empire to find suitable Governors for those Colonies which are approaching political maturity. The noble Earl has said that in his view a military appointment would have been politically neutral and, therefore, desirable in a country which is becoming very much alive politically. I think the noble Lord is mistaken. He suggested that when the new Governor happens to belong to a political Party in England his
120
politics should not be unacceptable in Malta. I would remind the House that Lord Strickland, of whom he spoke so highly, was also in the Labour Party.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I did not speak against any Party at all; I spoke in general terms.
LORD FARINGDON: I am not suggesting that the noble Earl spoke against a Party. What the noble Earl said was that the political background of the new Governor might be unacceptable to certain elements in Malta. I think that was an unfortunate suggestion, if I may say so. I think at least we in this House should assume that any Governor who is appointed will act properly as a Governor and will not show political prejudice. As I was saving, our big problem nowadays is to find a suitable type of Governor for the Colonies which are developing to political maturity. It is not an easy problem in the Colonial Service itself. Unfortunately we have had many instances where Colonial Service Governors used to dealing with backward people have found themselves out of tune in Colonies which are more advanced. I suggest that the only form of Governor who is really likely to be successful is a Governor who has had, here in England, the home of democratic politics, political experience.
I think the noble Earl was a little unfair in the light way in which he dealt with the present Governor's qualifications. He had a distinguished career on the London County Council, where he was chairman of the finance committee. I would have thought for a Colony like Malta, which is hardly more than a municipality, and indeed whose population is less that that of London, the experience of a new Governor as a politician, and as a politician dealing at close quarters with an area like that of the London County Council, would be likely to produce the sort of Governor who would understand the political development of the island, bring it forward and guide it in the way it should go. This is an example of one of the difficult problems we have in our Colonial Empire, and in this case I feel that His Majesty's Government have made a very wise departure which we should all watch with a careful eye.
4.16 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I only intervene for a short space of time to say that I most cordially agree with the

121
apprehension expressed by the noble Earl in moving his Motion. This problem which we are considering to-day does not seem to me to be one so much of personalities. I am sure the Governor who has been chosen by His Majesty's Government from amongst all their followers is regarded by them as one who will exercise the duties of Governor to the best of his ability, and I am sure he will do everything in his power to carry out the traditions of Governors in whatever part of the Empire to which they may be sent. But here we are dealing with a case where, for no reason that has become apparent and for which there has been no justification that I have seen, there is a complete departure from precedent. Have we any reason to think that the people of Malta were dissatisfied that the Government of this country always chose one of its greatest military leaders in order to uphold that position? Did they ever regard this as anything but a great honour to that Colony?
When the noble Lord who has just sat down speaks of the fact that the new Governor must not be out of tune with the people of Malta, I venture to think that if you asked any of the Maltese you would be told that Lord Gort was never out of tune. The whole population regarded him as a wonderful exemplar of chivalry and leadership in every respect, and he carried out the finest traditions in the deliberate sacrifices he made of his personal comfort in order to be with them. And has there been any criticism of previous Governors of Malta which is suggested by this change? I venture to think not. Taking the whole map of the world, with all the changes of strategic outlook, there is no place to-day, I venture to suggest, with the possible exception of Gibraltar, which can be regarded as more vital as a fortress to the whole of our communications and the whole of our prestige. I therefore feel it really is deplorable that Malta should have been selected. What has Malta done to deserve this great change? After all, the history, of Malta is a glowing one. We all feel that amongst al the people of countries which are inhabited by our fellow-subjects, the Maltese have risen to the greatest heights.
I should have thought this was a case where we should have endeavoured to select someone whose name is ringing through the land and through all the
122
Dominions overseas as one of those who saved this country by their leadership in the great struggle through which we have recently passed. The noble Lord says you really want a man of political experience. I am sure the gentleman who has been appointed has got political experience, but I had been a very long time in the House of Commons before I was forcibly ejected, and I must confess I do not remember that he was a very great and well-known politician in the Labour Party. Be that as it may, I think what we do want the people in the Dominions and Colonies overseas to realize is that we aim, as far as possible, in all these Governorships to keep them detached from any political point of view in this country, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cork, to that extent.
The noble Earl must have touched a responsive note in all your Lordships' minds, I think, when he referred to the fact that these are the very few appointments which you can give for crowning the career of a man who has given great service in the Fighting Forces. But His Majesty's Government, in violation of all precedent, decided that there should be no sort of recompense for the men who led us so brilliantly, and Admirals of the Fleet, Field-Marshals and Air-Marshals who had covered themselves with glory and who had done so much in the way of saving life (which is perhaps the greatest tribute we can pay them) in the last war, were, when they had finished that great service, treated in precisely the same as an Admiral of the Fleet, a Field-Marshal or an Air-Marshal in times of -peace. I believe the whole nation feels that a wrong was done there.
There are, however, four or five posts in which these men can render a last great act of service. If anyone imagines that these great leaders of the Fighting Forces have no experience in administration and have not shown the greatest qualities of diplomacy and tact in the positions they have reached in their Services, I venture to think he has not studied their careers very carefully. I hope the Government will give us at any rate better reasons than we have yet had presented to us, not as to why X, Y or Z was appointed but as to why there has been this departure from precedent and why we should not have taken steps to endeavour to see that these great men, whose

123
names are in all our minds, should receive these appointments where they could once more place their great experience at the service of their countrymen.
4.23 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have, as we all do, listened with more than interest to one of those breezy interludes which we expect when the noble and gallant Earl addresses the House, but I think that in some of his remarks he did himself a little less than justice. This appointment is not made (and I trust no appointments are made) on political grounds; it is made on merit. The present appointment does not cast the slightest reflection on any of the gallant gentlemen who have formerly held this office, and indeed the noble and gallant Earl himself said he could conceive that there might be a change of circumstances which would lead to a departure from the hitherto accepted practice. Might I point out to him that he has been a little less than just to the Government on the question of the appointments of this rank that they have made? As a matter of fact, all the very important appointments of this nature which have been made have been given to officers of the Fighting Services. Let me remind the noble Earl that Field-Marshal Alexander has been appointed as Governor-General of Canada, that a very gallant general has been appointed as Governor of Madras, and that the gallant general, General Freyburg, has been appointed as Governor-General of New Zealand.
LORD CROFT: Is it not correct to say that those appointments in the Dominions to which the noble Lord has referred are made after consultation with the Governments of the Dominions concerned?
LORD AMMON: Naturally, and I do not think it can be assumed that there is not also consultation with the people of Malta. I also think the noble Lord, Lord Croft, did not do himself justice when he suggested that this appointment was a criticism of past holders of the office. It is nothing of the sort. I am sure nobody is more ready than my colleagues in the Government to pay their tribute to those who served in those offices in times gone by, but I very much object to the view being held that appointments to these positions should be made as rewards for service in some particular arm
124
of the Services. The Government must have regard to the duties which the holders of the offices are to discharge and to the peoples over whom they are going to rule for the time being.
Having said that, I hope and believe that I shall convince the noble Earl that there are adequate reasons why this step should be taken, and in that connexion may I say a word about the present Governor, whom I have known for many years. It does not always happen that the people with great administrative ability and those who do important work in the public service are those who loom largely in the discussions in either House of Parliament. They can, as Mr. Douglas has done, render much public service in other spheres. Mr. Douglas (a professional gentleman of standing) has been chairman of the finance committee of the London County Council for many years. Might I remind your Lordships that that has a clientêle of something over 8,000,000 people—several times larger than the population of Malta. He has served in a position of great responsibility and has earned the approval not only of the County Council itself but of the public outside by the way he has managed the Council's finances. His reputation was such that when he entered the other place he was appointed Chairman of the Estimates Committee, and he has, therefore, wide experience of financial questions in the field of both central and local government. I say that having regard to the somewhat, shall I say, oblique criticism that has been made of the gentleman who has been appointed.
The question of the appointment of a civilian to the Governorship of Malta has been under discussion at various times for many years in view of the growing complexity of the constitutional and administrative questions arising in the island. This has been accentuated by the change from war to peace conditions and the local administration is now confronted with acutely pressing problems connected with constitutional changes and financial and economic adjustment. To deal with those conditions it was felt to be in the best interests of the Maltese people to appoint a Governor with experience in the field of civil government and it is on those grounds that His Majesty's Government have based themselves in making the recent change. The circumstances now

125
are altogether different from those which prevailed when one looked upon Malta chiefly as a fortress and there is not the slightest reflection on those gallant gentlemen who have filled this position in days gone by or on others who are still in the Services. I hope that your Lordships will see that this is a wise departure to meet the change in circumstances which has occurred in the island. I am not unfamiliar with the island myself. I went there on many occasions when I was at the Admiralty and came into touch with many of its people in many ways. From what I know of them, I do not imagine that this will be an unwelcome appointment.
4.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. After listening to the very eloquent remarks from the Government Benches, I must say that I do not think any of them are really valid. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, agreed with me I thought to a certain extent in that you ought to have somebody above a politician for this position. When I say that, I hope nobody in this House will think I am casting any slurs on politicians, because I can think of several politicians with very distinguished records who would make excellent Governors. I do not think you want the Governor of any Colony to go into details, because he has got his staff to do that. The worst Commander-in-Chief that exists is the man who will try to deal with every detail and who will not trust to the men he has got around him. I am perfectly sure that that is true in the case of the Governor of a Colony such as Malta.
What are these new problems? They have been boiling up for some time. There have been political problems in Malta ever since 1814, I think it was, when we took the island over. They have always been present; there is very little new. They come in cycles like the troubles in the history of this country; the same problems come up time after time. Military men have been talked about in glowing terms—many words have been used to say what wonderful men our leaders are—but when it comes to dealing with them in a tangible fashion, they
126
are neglected and slurred. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.

ISSUE OF PEACE STAMPS.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what has been the success of the issue of peace stamps, and how long they will be on sale to the public.]
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend opposite for raising this matter. Our intention is that the peace stamps shall be available to the public for about two months, that is, until the middle of August. These stamps have proved very popular, and the demand for them has been much greater than was anticipated. Almost the whole of the original stock has now been issued to Post Offices. In order to keep up the stock, I have arranged for a further supply to be printed, making the total order to date 300,000,000 of the 2½d. and 42,000,000 of the 3d. stamps.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before the House adjourns, will your Lordships permit me to say that in order to meet the general convenience it has been arranged through the usual channels that the meeting of the House for public business on Tuesday next, July 9, should be at 11.30 in the morning. There will be an adjournment at 3.30 in the afternoon and we shall resume the sitting at a later hour, say 5 o'clock or 5.30, as is most convenient, if the state of business makes this necessary.

WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBU- TION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Certificate from

127
the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table. Bill committed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCE- DURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lords following be proposed
128
to the House as members of the Panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act:
E. Iddesleigh.
L. Teviot.
Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
House adjourned at half past four o'clock