Lords Sitting of 13 August 1947

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

  VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  The question was as follows:
  [To ask His Majesty's Government, in connexion with the experiments which are to be carried out during the recess with a view to remedying the ventilation of the House, whether care will be taken to avoid the system which obtained in the old House of Commons, whereby fresh air was introduced into the Chamber under member's feet, so that members were prone to suffer from cold feet and hot heads, thereby creating a bodily condition which did not facilitate the temperate consideration of legislative problems.]
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. It is not proposed to adopt the system which obtained in the old House of Commons. The change will be limited to the installation of fans and the regulation of the use of the existing air inlets to avoid the intake of hot air from the south side of the building.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, may I ask that the Government should give full consideration to the old-fashioned method of ventilating rooms by opening windows to let in fresh air, and that no scientific scheme should be permitted which will necessitate the closing of the windows, as did obtain, as my noble friend Lord Ammon knows, in the old House of Commons? I wonder if your Lordships are aware that the three yellow-tinted windows behind me, which look as if they allowed fresh air in, are but a sham, that they open into a box, and that there is but one small diamond-shaped window alone which opens to the fresh air. All this large number of louver windows are
  1358
  just a sham. The only window which allows the intake of fresh air is a small diamond about the size of a top-hat.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: A good sized diamond.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: Will the Government see that these windows are made to open so that we can have fresh air by that means and not depend on scientific inventions?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord has said, may I ask this: When winter comes, if the Minister of Fuel does not provide adequate heat, will the Government also see to it that the windows shut?
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, the question of the ventilation of this Chamber is at present being dealt with by the Minister of Works, and no doubt the points which have been made by noble Lords will be given consideration. Of course, there is a good deal of sham in the building just now, and that is entirely owing to the "Blitz." With regard to questions relating to new buildings, they, of course, are being given every attention, as has already been indicated.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The last words of the original reply of the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, were not clearly heard this end of the Chamber. He referred, did he not, to the intake of hot air into this 'Chamber? Where did it come from?
  LORD AMMON: I believe that it is sometimes resident in the building.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (EXTENDED PURPOSES) BILL.
11.8 a.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extension of powers under 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 10.
1.—(1) The Regulations which at the date of the passing of this Act have effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945 (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1945"), and any

1359
orders or other instruments in force thereunder, shall, in so far as their operation is limited, expressly or by implication, to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of that Act, be extended so as to be applicable for the following additional purposes, that is to say:—

(a) for promoting the productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture;

(b) for fostering and directing exports and reducing imports, or imports of any classes, from all or any countries and for redressing the balance of trade; and

(c generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used, in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community;

and accordingly any references in the said Regulations, orders and other instruments to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of that Act shall be construed as including references to the purposes aforesaid:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be held to authorise the suppression or suspension of any newspaper, periodical, book or other publication.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "extended," to insert "as a temporary or exceptional measure." The noble Viscount said: We have been told that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it is with the desire to carry out that maxim that I have ventured to put down this Amendment. It raises a very short but, I think, important point. In the course of the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, yesterday—the admirable and convincing speech, if he will allow me to say so—he insisted very strongly that this Bill must be treated and taken in conjunction with the Acts of 1939 and 1945. I entirely agree with him. It is all part of a system or, at any rate, a tendency to interrupt and postpone some of the guarantees of liberty of person and property which are the result of centuries of political prudence and intelligence in this country.
In themselves, the actual proposals of this Bill, as was amply demonstrated by the debate yesterday, are not free from danger, but they have been justified—and the Lord Chancellor really insisted upon that most particularly—by the necessities of the time. I could not help feeling as I listened to the debate that that excuse or defence of the measure is merely an adaptation of the old raison d'état which was the excuse and justification for all arbitrary government
1360
in the past. But I do not question for a moment the validity of the principle of this defence. All I wish to press on your Lordships is that it very easily leads to radical forms of government. It is such an attractive and simple way out of difficulties. In 1939 the reasons were overwhelming, I quite admit it. We were fighting for our lives against an utterly cruel and unscrupulous enemy and we were bound to use whatever measures could be suggested to defend ourselves against treachery and fifth column disloyalty. In consequence, we had to accept measures which entirely suspended the ordinary guarantees of fair trial and publicity.
In 1945 we were faced by the enormous social and economic problems of the transition from war to peace. Here again the case, though not so overwhelmingly strong as in 1939, was certainly very powerful. As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, told us yesterday—indeed he made it part of his argument—it produced a very, very far-reaching remedy, though not quite to the extent of the previous Act. Now we have a new problem. It is, broadly speaking, the protection of our means of international trade and it requires a great increase of production. I do not think I am misstating the broad outline of the problem which now presents itself to us. This is no doubt a cogent matter, though not of course in the same line of urgency as the crisis we had to meet in 1939 or yet in 1945. What I ask myself, and I do it without any Party prejudice in this matter, is this: How far are we going to travel along this road? There are those who would go very far. We know it. They have said so quite openly. The speeches made by Mr. Crossman and Mr. Zilliacus show the length to which they hope and believe they will be able to press this kind of procedure. When I was young it was a common maxim of people of that way of thinking that private property was a form of theft, and a little later on it was freely said, with a great deal of justification I admit, that a manual labourer was nothing but a wage slave. Obviously, maxims of that kind may lead you very far.
I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me. I do not for a moment suggest that the Prime Minister or most of his colleagues are revolutionaries. All the

1361
same, if this way of legislation is admitted as a proper and reasonable political device, can we be quite sure how it may be used by, let me say, a Ministry presided over by Mr. Crossman? Therefore I submit that we ought to take any precaution we can take to make it clear that this is purely an exceptional and temporary measure. No doubt it is temporary, because it is an Amendment of the Act of 1945, which itself comes to an end in three or four years' time, but there is nothing on the face of this Bill to show that it is an exceptional measure. To put it on the face of this Bill does not make a complete protection, I quite admit, but it does help future minorities to urge strongly that a further step on this road is not justified by anything we are doing today. It is because I am most: anxious, passionately anxious, not to embark on anything which can really attack the foundations of the great structure of liberty which we have erected in this country that I do ask your Lordships and the Government to give earnest consideration to this Amendment which, after all, does not in any way take away from or diminish the practical effect of the Bill but merely constitutes a warning against going farther on this road for the future. That is the sole purpose of this Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, after ("extended") insert ("as a temporary or exceptional measure").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not intend to intervene at any length. Indeed, there is very little I could usefully add to the profound observations of my noble relative to which the House has just listened. I am quite certain that everyone who has heard the noble Viscount will have been deeply impressed by what he said. My noble relative, if I may say so in his presence, is not a man who belongs strictly to any particular Party. He has always been noted for his independence of mind and no doubt anything that comes from him on a matter of this kind will be listened to throughout the country with the respect which it deserves.
The only argument I can conceive the Government might use against this Amendment is that it is unnecessary—it is inherent in the Bill as it stands. As the noble Viscount has just said, it is true it is a temporary Bill. The 1945 Bill was for five years. Two have already
1362
elapsed, and these new categories added by this Bill will only be in operation, unless extended, for another three years. But at the same time, I think it is very important from the point of view of all Parties, of all constitutional Parties, that the fact that: these things are temporary should be underlined, and underlined Very heavily. Moreover, there is another word which occurs in the Amendment, "exceptional." It should be clearly understood by everybody in this county that the Government themselves regard a measure of this kind as exceptional in the ordinary course of action a Government should take. That is, so far as I know, to be found nowhere in the Bill.
I have not the slightest doubt twat every noble Lord sitting opposite would accept the word "exceptional," but there are a great many of their colleagues in another place who do not, whose whole purpose and policy is to make the form of government represented by this Bill a real permanence in this country. There is no secret about it. They have said it openly in the House of Commons and outside. We consider it important that the Government should make it clear that they stand, just as we do, for the basic principles of liberty. Liberty is being attacked in every part of the world at the present time and I am quite sure that liberty can only be preserved by positive action, otherwise it will be crumbed away and crumbled away until we find ourselves in the unhappy position in which Germany and Italy and Russia have found themselves. That would be not only an absolute disaster but the antithesis of everything that this country has stood for ever since its Parliamentary history began. It does seem to me that, although this Amendment is not. of very great importance, it does enshrine a great principle. If the Government could see their way to accept it, I am sure that it would be regarding with satisfaction, not only by your Lordships hut by a large section of public opinion in the country.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I venture to hope, in spite of my great sympathy with tie mover of this Amendment, that it will not be pressed, arid I do not think the Government ought to accept it. If it is an Act of Parliament, it is something which the Law Courts have to interpret. I cannot see how any Court could decide

1363
whether a thing was temporary or exceptional for these purposes, as distinct from other purposes. There is one other point in this Bill. The Bill is simply adding to purposes already covered in an Act of Parliament certain additional purposes. I venture to say that I do not want to specify only those additional purposes as "temporary or exceptional." I think the whole existing Act ought to be regarded as "temporary or exceptional." By a well-known rule of law, which is no doubt well in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—I may be taking the words out of his mouth before he utters them—if you specify one thing you automatically exclude another. If you say that these three additional purposes are temporary or exceptional, you in fact supply an argument that the purposes already in the Act, and the immense powers already in the Act, are neither temporary nor exceptional. I suggest to your Lordships that it is far more important to maintain that the whole of the original Act is " temporary or exceptional."
VISCOUNT SIMON: With great respect to the noble Lord, they are temporary. They have to expire three years and three months from now.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Yes. Then why put in these additional words for these particular purposes? I venture to suggest that the Amendment is almost as unnecessary as the Bill which we are now considering. It is a little difficult to put it higher than that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I think the observations which have been made by the two noble Lords have largely covered the points. I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that anything which is said by the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment is entitled to and receives great consideration from your Lordships' House and from a much wider public outside. I agree that throughout his life he has stood for the principle which we must always remember, that eternal vigilance is necessary if we are to preserve our liberty. But, having said that, I do feel that this Amendment is not only entirely unnecessary—as to that I think there can be no question—but that in some sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, it is actually undesirable.
1364
The first thing to make absolutely plain (the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just pointed it out) is that this Bill, on the face of it, is a purely temporary Bill. The operative words are these:
"The Regulations which at the date of the passing of this Act have effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945…"
As we all know, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, which received the Royal Assent in December of that year, runs for five years, and five years only. Therefore, the whole edifice comes to an end in December, 1950.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I think it should be on record that it can be extended for another year by Resolution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. That is, of course, accurate. It can be extended by the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. So unless both Houses so desire, and give an affirmative Resolution, it does come to an end in December, 1950.
VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD: I did say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a fundamental consideration of which the noble Viscount has not lost sight. So much for its being temporary. With regard to its being exceptional, the whole object of putting in the Preamble which we did put in was to emphasize—in a much more effective way, if I may say so, than by putting in the word "exceptional"—that this is an exceptional measure. We do not very often get Preambles at all now. We have a Preamble to this Bill, the second paragraph of which says:
"And whereas, by reason of the war and the dislocation of trade consequent thereon, supplies and services available are, or are likely shortly to become, insufficient for meeting the essential needs of the community, and it has become necessary that the use of the powers conferred by those regulations should be directed more particularly to increasing production and redressing the balance of trade:
Now, therefore, be it enacted …"
The object of that Preamble is to call attention to the fact that we are here dealing with exceptional measures. Therefore, I maintain it is manifest that this Amendment is unnecessary.
The Bill is a temporary Bill, and it is a measure to deal with an exceptional state

1365
of affairs. I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. Why should we extend to this Bill some provision and some statement which we do not extend to the Act of 1945? They are both, as we know, on the face of them, temporary measures. Why should we take the trouble to describe one as temporary, arid not so describe the other? I can well imagine the argument being used hereafter: "With regard to the Bill extending purposes, they pointed out that it was temporary and exceptional; but they did not use that phrase with regard to the Act of 1945. Therefore, let us go on with the Act of 1945." It very often happens that when you put in words like this they have the opposite effect of that which you desire. Of course, I realize the danger which the noble Viscount is anxious to guard against. I am afraid I do not myself have the privilege of knowing Mr. Crossman. I hope Mr. Crossman is not going to take the place of Professor Laski as a kind of bogy man. I have not read what he said in the debate in another place. I understand that in his young days he was a very keen footballer, and perhaps on this occasion he got offside. His Majesty's Government, with great respect to a very distinguished politician, are not represented by Mr. Crossman. If and when Mr. Crossman does become Prime Minister of this country, and forms a Government, then, of course, he will introduce with his colleagues such measures as he thinks proper; and I am sure we shall not prevent him from introducing those measures—which will no doubt be admirable measures—by any statement which we make in this Bill. I do not think that is being realistic. For those reasons, I ask your Lordships to say that, besides being unnecessary, this Amendment—if you do want to emphasize the fact that these are temporary things, the Act of 1945 as well as this Bill—is really inadvisable.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I find myself in the position of being able to say that the noble and learned Viscount contradicted himself in his argument. His argument is that it is not necessary to put these words in, because they are really implied in the Preamble. That is one part of his argument. But he said that you must not put anything into this Bill which makes it more exceptional than the Act of 1945, because that would be to indicate
1366
that the Act of 1945 was not exceptional. If his Preamble is really properly described by him as embodying the conception that this is an exceptional measure, then the Preamble ought to be struck out for the same reason.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting. I have not the Act of 1945 here, but my recollection is that there is a somewhat similar Preamble in that Act.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course, I do not know whether that is so or not. If that is so, then it does not do any harm to say that this is an exceptional measure, because the 1945 Act is already described as an exceptional measure. I think he gas been misled by the too great subtlety of my noble friend Lord Beveridge. The noble Lord has the very subtle intellect which always sees arguments that nobody else would appreciate. So far as I am concerned, I have nothing to add to these arguments upon one side or the other. I think it would be a desirable thing to have some statement on the face of this Bill flat it must not be used as a precedent for legislation which may conic to pass in the future. That, I think, is an important and desirable thing.
When my noble friend the Lord Chancellor says that the purposes of this Bill are clearly described in the Preamble, no doubt that is so, but the point is that you want something to say: "These are the purposes and they are exceptional in their character. It is only because they are exceptional that we ask for these exceptional powers." I certainly do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division if I am advised not to do so. I am certainly grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having made it as clear as he has and for the assurance that he, at any rate, would be no party to the use of this Bill as a precedent. All I want is to have something which we cm quote in future discussions with some more extreme Party, to enable us to sty that what they then propose is not justified by what we are doing now.
I feel very anxious about this matter. I feel that we are in the course of taking a step forward much longer and much more important than some of us perceive. I feel very strongly indeed that those members of the Labour Party who in

1367
another place said that they were against the entire Bill on those grounds, were perfectly right. It is a step towards arbitrary government, and it seems to me that nobody can deny it. I am very anxious indeed, but of course if the Opposition tell me that they do not feel that this is an appropriate step to take I shall certainly withdraw. But unless they say that to me I should be disposed to go on with this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would it be of any assistance if I were to say to the noble Viscount in the clearest and most emphatic terms that I regard this matter as a temporary and exceptional measure, and in saying that I am speaking as a member of this Government?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Certainly it helps, but the trouble about statements of that sort, as my noble and learned friend knows quite well, is that they are very effective for the time being, but a year or two later they are not so effective. That is why I wanted it on the face of the Bill. That is all I want. I have no other purpose, and I do not want to cut down the powers of this Bill at all. I quite recognize the force of what was said yesterday, that we must not look too narrowly on the steps the Government recommend for the purpose of meeting a crisis of very great danger. But I should like to see those words inserted, and I must respectfully ask the Opposition whether they are prepared to support it or not. If they are not, then I shall withdraw the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I, of course, have the greatest sympathy, as I have already said, with the noble Viscount, and I cannot still understand, in spite of the arguments used by the Lord Chancellor, why these words should not be put in. I feel we are in a certain difficulty over this matter. The line which I advocated to your Lordships yesterday was that we should not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and should not amend it in Committee, but should concentrate upon maintaining the authority of Parliament—which is the important thing—by returning at an earlier date than had otherwise been intended, in order to keep an eye on each instrument which is introduced under this Bill. We intend to do that. We might put in this Amendment,
1368
desirable as it is, and send the matter back to another place, with all the delay which they would involve. But in view of the definite assurance which the noble and learned Viscount has given, I think that it would not, perhaps, be justifiable; and I should not be willing to recommend that course to your Lordships.
But I would make one comment on what the Lord Chancellor has said. We are grateful to him for giving such an unequivocal assurance on behalf, not only of himself, but of the Government. But if we are getting into a state of government by delegated legislation, we are also getting into a phase of government by assurance. Again and again we have tried to put into Bills things which everybody is agreed would do no harm, and might have done good, and each time the noble and learned Viscount has got up and said: "We cannot put these things into the Bill, but I am very willing to give you an assurance." I do hope the Government and the Lord Chancellor will realize that that is not the same thing. We recognize that the Lord Chancellor has great moderation in his views, but he is not the last Lord Chancellor, and the Ministers are not the last Ministers. We are putting Acts on the Statute Book, and these Ministers may be succeeded by other Ministers who will not be bound by these assurances. I hope that this phase is coming to an end; that we shall not have these assurances again but that in future, unless there is any definite disadvantage in the inclusion of words in a Bill, they should be put in and there should be no question of assurances.
I regret very much that the Government have not seen fit to take that course in the present case. I see no reason why they should not have done so, but in view of the very strong words which the Lord Chancellor used, and in view of the fact that we in this House propose to keep a very strict eagle eye upon every instrument which is introduced under this Bill, I think on this occasion my noble relative should refrain from pressing the matter to a Division.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: In view of what has fallen from the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, I shall not press the matter further, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 28), Bill read 3a and passed.

PALESTINE.
11.38 a.m.
VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the conditions in Palestine; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships on the Motion which stands in my name, I had no idea a week ago when I put this Motion on the Order Paper that this grave question of Palestine was to be discussed in another place, as it was yesterday. The sole reason that prompted me to put the Motion down was the amount of correspondence I was receiving, and have received, from all parts of the country expressing grave anxiety about the position in Palestine. Had I known that this was going to be discussed in another place I should have gone on with my Motion, and since reading the reply of the Under-Secretary in another place, I am bound to confess that my fears as to the future of Palestine during the holidays, when we are going to be away for at least eight weeks, have been added to rather than decreased.
With regard to the question that I was to raise and of which I gave private notice to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who is to reply, as to whether the High Commissioner had full powers to act without consultation with His Majesty's Government, I accept the reply given by the Secretary of State yesterday that he had. We come to the question of the Commander-in-Chief. We hear that there are vast Forces in Palestine at this moment—approximately, 100,000. Whether or not these Forms were being extended, the fact remains that terrorism is continuing. I give place to no one in my admiration of the patience and tolerance of our brilliant and magnificent troops in Palestine during this time; and I do not desire to criticize in any way the action of the Higher Command out there. But terrorism and crime increase in Palestine—alas! on both sides. I do not believe
1370
that Great Britain is aimed at, but that there is a feud in which we, unfortunately, intervene. But, as it increases, our anxiety in this country increases.
Many of us are implicated in the matter. I have a son who may be going out and there are many thousands like him. We can take it. We proved that we could take it in the. war, when many of us lost those of whom we were very fond. Then, however, there was an object, an enemy, and a policy—to win the war. We won the war, and no sacrifice was too great so long as England came out on top. What is the sacrifice we are called upon to make now? I believe in ruling or in out. Have we got enough getting troops in Palestine? Not very long ago one of our Judges was sitting in his Court out there; the Court was held up and the Judge kidnapped and taken prisoner. Are the greatest precautions being taken now so that our judges are no longer held up in their work? It is this sort of thing that is making people here very anxious. Then we had the appalling crime of the hanging of the two N.C.O.'s—one of whom came from my own port and city of Bristol. How does it come about that these things can happen if we are properly organized? Is every precaution taken to see that our soldiers do not walk about in driblets? Even as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was putting a recent question, a Ministry of Labour building out there was blown up, and three more of our police were killed. The position is getting worse day by day.
One thought we might get a little more encouraging news yesterday when the Secretary of State replied to the debate in another place. Apparently, we now have to wait further developments. I do not criticize that; but we are now told that we must wait four or five weeks before the results of certain investigations are known. I wish to ask the noble Viscount who is to reply whether a Committee is being set up. If not, would it not be wise to set one up before the House rises so that the result of the inquiries can be immediately investigated, and such action taken as may be necessary? Surely, whatever action is necessary should taken at once. That, I believe, is what the people of this country are looking for, and what, so far, they have not received. I appreciate that many of your Lordships have had far greater experience

1371
of this grave question than I have. Therefore, I do not wish to go into great detail, or to propound what I think should or should not happen. But I should like to express to His Majesty's Government the great anxiety felt by all the parents and wives of men serving in Palestine at this moment. They are getting more uneasy as time goes on.
But there is another aspect of the question, and that is the ships which convey Jews illegally to Palestine. These ships come from a port in a friendly country, a country with whom we have a treaty of friendship. These ships were allowed to leave, and I would like to ask His Majesty's Government whether we were informed that these Jews were boarding the ships, and if so, why did the French Government allow it to go? I should also like to ask whether representations have been made on this matter through our Ambassador in Paris. We are told that 4,000 Jews were illegally travelling on one ship to Palestine, and of course there are other ships. Who is paying for this? We are paying a considerable sum of money for our troops in Palestine. Are we to bear the whole burden of the extra cost caused by these ships?
The Under-Secretary of State in his reply yesterday said: "I think the French Government are feeding them." After four weeks, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies does not know what is happening to these Jews. Surely we can have a definite answer as to what is happening and who is paying for these ships and for the feeding of these Jews? As they came from France, I should have thought France would have paid her share. Why should the cost fall on this country? So with Italy. Exactly the same thing happened there prior to this incident; a ship tried to get into Palestine but eventually the people were transferred from it to Cyprus. Were there no means of acting through our Ambassador to Italy? After all, we have done a great deal for that country. On the other hand, in the case of a Swedish ship in a Swedish port, I understand that we made representations to stop that ship leaving that port to go and pick up illegal Jews. If it can be done there, why can it not be done with France and Italy?
Can the noble Viscount when he replies tell us whether these illegally-travelling people—I am very sorry for them; they have had an awful time in Central Europe—are being financed by the Communists? If they are being financed by the Communists, the country should be told, and we should know then how to deal with this matter. But there is a complete silence. I am proud to say that I have amongst my friends a considerable number of Jews; I mean that with all sincerity. They subscribe to the fund in this country which, very properly, has been in existence for many years, to help their kith and kin in Central Europe. Two of those prominent Jews said to me the other day, "I wonder where this money really goes?" I am not making any insinuation against the Association, but do the Government know, as I am sure they must know because there is this Treasury ban on money, where this money is going, whether it is really getting into the right hands to help the Jews who are allowed to be sent to Palestine or whether it is getting into the hands of Communists who are using it deliberately to stab England in the back?
There are other questions that I would like to raise, but I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer, except to say this. Having read this reply on the part of His Majesty's Government that everything is to be postponed, that the Minister in another place regrets that he really cannot answer that, that it is all very difficult, I am bound to say that it is all very difficult. No one abhors riots more than I do, and you must not try the patience of people too long. You must try to help them. Tell them the facts and England will stand up to anything, but you go on putting it off and putting it off and shelving it. After the five weeks that these ships have been in port you can only answer "I think." In these circumstances it is right and proper that this Motion should be moved on the floor of your Lordships' House to-day before we go for our holiday. I beg to move for Papers.
11.53 a.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Viscount who moved this Motion did well—I say this very respectfully—to confine himself, in discussing his Motion, to the immediate situation and not

1373
to embark upon a longer-term view of a matter which is still under consideration and, one hopes, is possibly approaching decision by a Committee of the United Nations. I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount point by point. The matter is for the Government to deal with, but I might perhaps say one word which I hope may be of some reassurance to him on one matter which he raised towards the end of his speech. He talked about a fund existing in this country for the purpose of assisting Jews in distress in Germany and Central Europe. I think I know the fund to which he is referring. If I do, I have been associated with it since its foundation in the early 'thirties. I think my noble friend Viscount Samuel was its first President and I do not think that any of your Lordships would accuse either of us or the others of the Jewish community who are responsible for the conduct of that fund——
VISCOUNT LONG: I was not attempting to accuse anybody here.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I quite accept that. I am not making any point against the noble Viscount. I make the general observation that I do not think that those responsible for the conduct of that fund would he accused by those who knew them of having Communist sympathy or failing to take proper precautions to see that such funds as left this country for the benefit of Jews on the Continent were used for those purposes and only for those purposes, and that every effort was made, wind I believe most successfully made, to seal off any possibility of those funds going astray and reaching undesirable destinations.
I only want to say one or two possibly somewhat disconnected words, reflections which have been borne in upon me by the course of recent events. In saying this and in saying anything else that I say to-day, I would make it clear that I have no authority to speak for the Jewish community in this country or indeed for anybody except myself, but I have an obvious interest in knowing, so far as one can, what the prevailing view is. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of indicating on one or two points what I believe that view to be. I have read on frequent occasions lately statements and exhortations from perfectly friendly sources appealing to the Jews of this
1374
country to use their influence with the terrorists in Palestine. At the first approach there is, of course, nothing in the least improper in that. Indeed, it would be quite right that the Jews of this country should use their influence, but it is no good asking them to use their influence if they have none. I sometimes wonder, when people exhort us here to use our influence with the terrorists in Palestine, what action they have in mind that we should take. IN hat do they conceive that we can do in any way to moderate or restrain the activities of these wild and irresponsible men? We who do not agree with them and are at the same time Jews are probably the people in the world who have the least influence with them, and all I would say on that is that it really is no good issuing vague exhortations to the Jewish community in this country to exercise an influence which they do not possess and which in the very circumstances of the case they are the persons least likely to possess.
I only wish—I think that is common to the whole of the Jewish community here—that we had some influence that we could use, because it is not an attractive position for any of the Jews here, perhaps particularly, if I may say so, for those thousands of Jews who in the past years served in His Majesty's Forces, to read now from day to day the horrible and squalid story of the events in Palestine. I think it is true to say of the past that in every country the great danger to the Jewish community of that country has been the growth of a. fanatical and perfervid spirit of nationalism. It is a terrible thing, perhaps particularly for Jews themselves, to see even a small section of Jews, even confined to that one country of Palestine, attacked by this same deadly virus which has been the destruction of so many of their fellows in the past. It does not make it any better that a considerable quantity of that virus is injected from outside and from a section of a country with which otherwise this country is on the friendliest terms, and in the interest: of the peace of the world should remain upon the friendliest terms. I believe it is absolutely true to say that the Jewish community in this country view with increasing disgust, detestation,

1375
and dismay, the campaign of vituperation carried on by a section, probably numerous and certainly vociferous, of the Jewish community in the United States, in which virulence of expression seems to be equalled only by ignorance and distortion of fact. It is a tragic situation, when the great need of the world is peace, that the opportunity should be taken by any section of any community to go to the lengths of excess, of incitement and execration which that particular section, by no means representing the whole of the Jewish community of the United States, has allowed itself to achieve.
Having said that, I want to say only one more thing. Hidden behind the dust of this unhappy conflict there still remain, either in the camps or elsewhere, many tens of thousands of those who were the inhabitants of the concentration camps in the days of the liberation of Germany, now two and a quarter years ago. I have seen it said that these two problems are quite separate, and that it is wrong to confuse the problem of Palestine with the problem of the ultimate settlement of these persons. I have enough personal experience to know that you cannot separate those two problems. In connexion with the same Fund that I referred to earlier on, in the years before the war, when there were many thousands of refugees fleeing from Germany and Austria to the sanctuary of this country—a fact which the section of American Jewry to which I have just referred seems now conveniently to forget—and when those many thousands of Jews were given temporary sanctuary here on their way to their ultimate destinations, those of us who were responsible for the organization which received them here looked after them during their stay and intended, if the war had not come, to send them on to their ultimate homes, found ourselves beating against one barred and bolted door after another.
I do not think the experience in the short interval of the post-war years has been very different. Whether one sympathizes with the ideological considerations which turn many Jews' thoughts to Palestine, or whether one's conscience—whether it be a Jewish or a Gentile conscience—is stirred by the plight of these unhappy people, there are these two considerations to be borne in mind. First of all, from whatever aspect, in what-
1376
ever state of mind they may have started at the time of liberation, I believe it is true to say now that their hopes are concentrated ultimately upon finding a home in Palestine, amongst people who want to receive them, rather than being given a home in some other country, amongst people who receive them out of kindness and charity, but perhaps with just a little hesitation and reluctance—enough to destroy the welcome.
I hope, therefore, that the Government have not forgotten the position of these people, and will do something in order to give them at least some hope upon which to live, looking forward to the time when they may achieve—or at least the majority of them—what is, perhaps, the only ambition now left to them in life. Some of them may take the view that they have earned, by what they have undergone during these past years, some right to a little consideration in the choice which is made as to their future. I do not propose to elaborate that, but merely to state it as a point of view which is present in many of their minds. My Lords, I know it is difficult. I know the reply which is made, and cogently made, by the Arabs in that part of the world is that it is for the other countries to share with them in the absorption of this population.
One has, I think, always to bear in mind, firstly, what they have gone through; and, secondly, one thing of which I am satisfied, the fact of where their hopes lie for the future. The picture at this moment may be sufficiently sombre. It is not easy to see a rift in the clouds which hang over Palestine, but at the same time there may, perhaps, be just this one brighter reflection. In the past few years, not once but many times in this House and in another place, there have been debates, sometimes acrimonious, certainly by no means unanimous, on the subject of India and the policy to be followed in regard to the future status of that country It is not long now since in both Houses a policy was approved, with almost, if not quite, complete unanimity by all Parties, which it was generally hoped would lead to a lasting settlement of the Indian problem. That example, perhaps, gives us a little foundation for hope that the time may not be too long deferred when, in this House and another place, we may welcome a solution of a kindred problem

1377
in Palestine, and that as a result there may return to that country the peace which is the ultimate and overwhelming desire of all sections of opinion.
12.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the most reverend Primate, I find myself called upon to say a few words on behalf of those who habitually sit on these Benches. Let me say at once with what deep sympathy every member of your Lordships' House must have listened to the very moving speech which we have just heard from the noble Marquess. Let me say, too, that we share to the full the distress and horror to which he has given expression, and which everyone else must feel at the present state of affairs in Palestine and at the mounting toll of outrages. and crimes by which that unhappy country's immediate history is being disfigured.
During these recent years of bloodshed and outrage, cruelty and violence, the world has supped full of horrors, and the mind is in danger of being hardened and habituated to the story of them. They become familiar, too familiar, to us all. It is important that we should not allow ourselves to give way to the idea that crimes of violence are either inevitable or excusable, or that the guilt or heinousness of them is in the least degree mitigated by repetition. Having said that, I would go on to say that the Christian Church cannot in principle identify itself with Zionism. The legitimate claim of the Jews in Palestine is not to the possession of the country but to a National Home there. Whether that home can be so extended as to take in all the displaced Jews from Europe who would desire to migrate thither is a question of obvious difficulty, and the noble Marquess who has just spoken himself recognized, by implication, that it might be impracticable for Palestine to receive them all. But the claim to a National Home——
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I was talking about those from concentration camps; I was not speaking of the whole Jewish population of Europe.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: Of course, in the last resort, it is a question of arithmetic. But the claim of the Jews to a National Home in Palestine—within the limits of what is practicable—which an
1378
Englishman wishes to see generously interpreted, rests with us not on any literalist interpretation of Old Testament prophecy but on the Balfour Declaration. Whether that Declaration was wise or not, it was made; and it stands. And whether or not conflicting promises, or promises not easily reconciled, were made both to Arab and to Jew, it is in any case obvious that neither Arab nor Jew can be excluded from Palestine. In the end they must share the country between them; nor is there any intrinsic reason why they should not, in the long run, do so to their mutual advantage.
In saying that I am echoing the hope to which the noble Marquess has himself given expression. They must in the end share the country between them. But to say that, of course, is to view the problem with a rational judgment, and the actual situation has become terribly entangled in irrational passions, so that the voice of reason has become wellnigh silenced. It has been silenced by a number of factors: Firstly, the more extreme claims made by the Zionists; secondly, the unscrupulous agitation on behalf of Zionism carrier. on by unwise friends of the Jews in many parts of the world; arid, above all, as the noble Marquess has emphasized, by the sinister exploitation of Zionism by interests extraneous to Palestine and not friendly to this country. Another important factor has been the development and continuance of the lamentable and shocking gangsterism which all right-minded and civilized persons deplore, and by which the cause of the Jews in Palestine has been so grievously prejudiced.
Jews and Arabs, Israel and Islam, both have religious interests in Palestine. So also have Christians. Apart from the fact that Palestine has been in the past, as it will be again in the future, whenever tranquillity has been restored, the goal of religious pilgrimages, Christians of whatever ecclesiastical colour, whether or not they are habituated to regard with sympathy the idea of veneration for holy Places and pilgrimages thereto, can never disinterest themselves from the fate of the land which was the scene of our Lords earthly life—the country, as Shakespeare says:
"Over whose acres walk'd those blessèd Feet,
Which [nineteen] hundred years ago were nail'd
For our advantage on the bitter Cross."

1379
Christians can never forget that our Lord came of a Jewish mother and was humanly of Jewish race. The record of Christian nations and of Governments and peoples ostensibly Christian, has, in the matter of their treatment of the Jews, too often been a black one. The record of the post-Christian and neo-Pagan regime which recently held sway in Germany has been without parallel in its vileness and horror, and is to-day universally execrated. Unhappily, it is not even to-day needless to draw attention to the fact that there are flagrant manifestations of anti-Semitism utterly irreconcilable with the spirit of Jesus Christ. Nothing can be more irreconcilable with His spirit than anti-Semitism in all its forms.
To-day in this country, to our shame, the spirit of anti-Semitism, provoked very irrationally by recent outrages in Palestine, is beginning sporadically to manifest itself. It is a spirit and a temper and an attitude towards the Jewish race which is in itself utterly out of keeping with our traditions and with what we like to hold to be true of our national character. Alike in the name of the religion which the majority of people in this country still claim to profess and in the name of reason and humanity, I express the hope that these incipient exhibitions of the mood and temper of anti-Semitism may quickly cease. I cannot admire the logic of those who, because of the outrages in Palestine by criminals of Jewish race, attack their own fellow citizens of Jewish race here in England. There appears to be clear evidence that active terrorism, even in Palestine, is confined to a small section of the population, whose activities are not supported—and in fact are condemned—by the majority of the Jews themselves, who themselves stand in terror of the terrorists. Those activities receive nothing but horrified condemnation from British Jewry. Therefore, anti-Semitism in England is without excuse, and I am confident that your Lordships will join with me in the prayer that it may speedily cease.
12.19 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, during the last year of the war I had the honour to serve as liaison officer on the training side of the War Department of the United States. There, in our deliberations and conferences, the factor which governed our actions was whether a particular
1380
course would save the life of one American soldier. If it would it was worth it. I believe that in our deliberations to-day, and in all dealings in the future, we should adopt that theory. Would any action we could take save the life of one soldier, sailor, airman, policeman or civilian serving his country in or round the coast of Palestine? If so it would be worth taking. In 1936 I went out to Palestine with the 1st Division, under the then General Sir John Dill, the late lamented Field-Marshal. Though where I was by the coast one had little in those days of the kind of warfare—I must call it warfare—that is going on now, one found that it was the most tiring, wearing and difficult form of military service possible. Now one never knows who is one's enemy, and our men never know from whence information is going to be given to the present enemy, who are, of course, the terrorists. In those days, any fighting that took place went on more in the hills and in the open. Now, to a great extent, it takes place in the towns. Small bands, like snakes, strike and are gone. So I would not under estimate in any way the difficulties which face the Government and the troops in bringing in the men concerned. And may I, in passing, join with everyone else who has spoken on this question in paying my humble tribute to all who have served so loyally, so well and so bravely in Palestine?
May I now turn for one minute to the subject of the aftermath of the dastardly double murder which has recently taken place? Can the noble Viscount who is to reply tell us whether there is any hope of the co-operation of the Jewish community in tracing not only the men responsible but also others who are taking part in these dastardly attacks? If there is not, I cannot help feeling that we must, from every point of view, put Palestine tinder Martial Law. Further, may I ask: Can the noble Viscount assure the House that if—as has been said—there is to be a reduction in the Armed Forces in the near future, Palestine will not be denuded of what Forces are there now? As I have said, what takes place out there is an exhausting and wearing battle of the nerves: and unless there are full reliefs, unless there is full leave, it is possible that tempers may get so frayed that there might he an incident which we would all deprecate. For that reason I believe that it is essential that we should keep up the

1381
strength which we have out there. And not only that: if necessary, we should not hesitate to increase it. In closing my few remarks I would express the hope that everything possible may be done to speed up consultations and to relieve the intolerable situation in which our soldiers, sailors, police and all serving in Palestine are placed. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give a clear indication of policy to be followed in the future in order that we may dispel the feeling, the existence of which I fear I must admit, that we are as a ship without a rudder, sailing in a stormy sea.
12.25 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships, in all parts of the House, will agree that the noble Viscount who sits behind me did well to put down this Motion for discussion to-day. It enable us to express our detestation and our horror at the crimes to which our troops are being submitted in Palestine. It also enables us to voice our deep and profound admiration for the manner in which they are bearing themselves under this most terrible strain. The situation in Palestine is indeed grave, and it may at any moment lead to a situation even more serious. That, speaking for myself, is one of the reasons why I am glad that this House is not adjourning for more than a short time. It is quite possible that things might happen in Palestine of which we should really have to take account in Parliament and on which we should express our views to the Government.
The situation is indeed a horrible one, and I feel that it is most horrible because the young men who are serving us there—at any rate in the junior ranks—are young men who can be forgiven for not understanding the kind of responsibility which we undertook in Palestine. It was undertaken in a past generation, and it later was universally—or at least very widely—declared to have been a mistaken responsibility for us to undertake. These young men can be forgiven for not realizing what we were at when we undertook it. They can be forgiven for not seeing any good moral or material purpose, or any national or international advantage, in the kind of duties which they have to carry out. That I think is the most terrible part of the situation. And that feeling is widely held. The feeling: expressed by many of our men in Palestine is: "Why should we
1382
have to put up with all this? Why do we not just give it up? "For my part I hope that that feeling will not come to a head. As the right reverend Prelate has said, we put our hand to the Balfour Declaration. We did undertake the Mandate, and we cannot abdicate it until some authority—which, in my opinion, can only be the United Nations—either takes it over or is prepared to support us in a course which we ourselves are prepared to approve and to undertake.
The behaviour of our troops in Palestine has been absolutely splendid, and it reflects the greatest credit on all ranks. But it is a terrible tragedy—and here again I agree with the right reverend Prelate—that the world does not seem to look with horror, as we do, on what is happening in Palestine. Civilized countries are taking these things almost for granted—as if we deserved what we are getting, as if there were no reason to sympathize with us. This is so in America and in France and, I believe. also in Italy and other countries. It is particularly regrettable that there should be this state of opinion in America and in France with regard to this matter. The behaviour of the French Government over the question of the emigrant ships, which sailed from France and were sent back, seems to me to be a matter on. which, as one of the oldest friends of France in this country, one should speak frankly. There is no hope for France or for ourselves, in my opinion, in our discharge of the common responsibilities which we bear in the Mediterranean, and in that part of the world generally, unless we co-operate all along the line. I am bound to say that the attitude which the French Government have adopted with regard to our difficulties in Palestine a not a ground for sympathy with them in their own great difficulties in North Africa. I think that it ought to be realized in France that if they are asking for sympathy—as thy are—they must be prepared to accord sympathy to us, and if they are asking for co-operation they must also be prepared to accord it to us.
We cannot throw up the sponge in Palestine—on that I insist—but it is our bounden duty to shorten the period of uncertainty by any means in our power. Perhaps the noble Viscount may be able to tell us something about that. When

1383
can we count on getting some decision from the United Nations? It seems to be a question of many weeks, but we are bound to do our utmost to shorten that period if we can. We owe that to the country and to the men on the spot. I think that may be done if we take measures in Palestine which will tend to show the urgency of a decision. International conferences are very apt to drift without adequate regard to what is happening on the spot about which they are deliberating, and I think we are bound to take all the steps we can to show how desperately urgent the decision on Palestine now is.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that it is a case for declaring Martial Law over a much wider area, or in certain specified areas. I hesitate to offer military advice to the military authorities there. They know much better than we can. I know that the answer of the Government when these suggestions are made is always that the military and civil authorities there, the High Commissioner and the General Officer Commanding, have got absolute authority to do whatever they think right. I do not think that is enough. It means a great deal for men carrying such responsibilities if they are sure the atmosphere behind them is cordial, and that in whatever measures they take they will be supported. It is not enough to say that they can do so. They must know that in whatever they do they will be supported in this country. The situation has reached that point. I think more consideration should be given to the imposition of Martial Law, at any rate in certain areas, or in wider areas than it has yet been tried—if not Martial Law, at any rate a much greater control of roads. All kinds of crimes are committed on thoroughfares, the stealing of lorries or taxis or something of that kind. The noble Lord described the kind of fighting which went on in the hills. These horrors are now taking place in towns and roads, and the control of roads is a vital matter. I wonder whether the convoy system might not be tried in order to get a greater control of traffic on the roads. It has been used very successfully in such conditions elsewhere. Again, one hesitates to make these suggestions, but I think the more we show how deeply concerned we are, even by throwing out suggestions that are not practical on the spot, the
1384
more we shall help and comfort the people bearing these responsibilities.
I have one other suggestion. I am not at all satisfied by the reasons given yesterday in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for the Government's refusal to impose collective fines. Collective fines are a proper measure of retribution when a whole community is obviously responsible, and the time has come when we must face the fact that the whole Jewish community in Palestine is responsible. They are not co-operating with the Government. These things could not take place if the Jewish Agency and the many great instruments of power that the Agency command were co-operating with the Government. In that case we are entitled to say that the whole community are to blame, and the whole community must take the responsibility. I press that because we imposed collective fines on the Arabs. If we imposed collective fines on the Arabs, what reason have we for not imposing them on the Jews? The only fine imposed was to increase the cost of petrol when the Jews attacked the refinery at Haifa. That fell alike on Arabs and Jews. It is all very well to reply that some of the fine is to be spent on social services for the Arabs. Why should, they have extra taxation because the Jews destroy a refinery? That is no justification for the course which the Government took, or at any rate approved. I think that to force on the Jews the realization that the whole of the Jews have the responsibility is deeply in the interests of Jews in Palestine, in this country, and throughout the world, because I do not believe they realize the extent to which the Jewish cause is suffering throughout the world as a result of what is happening in Palestine.
Finally, if the United Nations are going to delay, if we are going to find endless debate, decisions postponed and the strain continuing on our people until it becomes unbearable, I think the Government should consider demanding a denunciation of the crimes in Palestine from the United Nations, which they have not yet made. Astonishing as it may be, the United Nations have not denounced these crimes. The Government should demand the denunciation of these crimes and corrective action by the United Nations, if they go on while a decision is being reached. After all, that is what the United Nations exist

1385
for, and one of the most terrible things is that there has been no sign of moral indignation amongst the peoples of the United Nations about what is occurring in Palestine.
I could not agree more than I do with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who I see has left his place, about the dangers of nationalism at the present time. It is the tragedy of tragedies that the Jews, who have always been one of the great cements between different nations, should now have developed an extreme nationalism of their own, and are not only pursuing an ideal bad in the Holy Land, against the spirit of the age in the Holy Land, but pursuing an ideal which rouses up nationalism against them in other countries and causes this terrible wave of anti-Semitism. Everybody loathes anti-Semitism, but we can see why it arises and we must do our utmost to restrain it. If what is happening in Palestine continues, you will see whether anti-Semitism does not spread. Human nature simply will not stand it.
Here is the acid test for the United Nations. The United Nations were formed to bridge national differences and to broaden and transmute national purposes, to try and check the bitterness and narrowness of nationalism. Here the United Nations should be on their own ground. The noble Lord in his speech referred to the example of India. It is, in one sense, I agree, a cause for hope, but in another, surely there is no member of this House who does not regret that India is now partitioned and a conflict of nationalisms is going to take place there. That, I hope, will not be the case in Palestine. I have always felt that if racial and national co-operation cannot be established in the Holy Land, the birthplace of three great religions, in which the whole monotheistic world is deeply concerned—Christian, Moslem and Jew alike—if the United Nations cannot secure agreement and co-operation between the nations living there, is there any hope in the world?
12.39 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the quality of the debate to which we have just listened has justified the noble Viscount in initiating it, as he has done to-day. His Majesty's Government have no complaint at all to register that there
1386
should be on two succeeding days debates in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, and I feel that I should at once express my deep appreciation for the very helpful speeches which have been made by those of your Lordships who have participated in the debate here. We are quite conscious of the anxiety and concern in the minds of the people of this country with regard to the present situation in Palestine.
While I do riot want to single out any one of the speeches which have been made, I would like to say that it is some time since I have listened to a more profound, timely, important, and effective speech than that of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I have no doubt as to the attitude of, shall I say, almost every member of the Jewish population in this country concerning this question of Palestine. The speech itself was necessary to indicate to nations outside of our own that that is their attitude. Again, I think tie speech is timely for the remarks which he made as to the attitude of a substantial proportion of Jewry in America. I do hope the noble Marquess's speech will be read in its entirety (I wish it could have been heard) not only by Jewry in this country and America, but by the populations in these two countries an indeed, throughout the world. It may then well assist in bringing about the peaceful solution which all of us desire to this very difficult and long problem.
Many questions have been raised in the course of this debate, and I shall attempt to deal with them. I should say at once that the last crime which was committed in Palestine (I am referring to the murder of Sergeants Martin and Paice) was in some respects the worst crime committed in a series of dastardly crimes. These two British soldiers were innocent of offence against the murderers or, indeed, against Jewry. Their only duty was that of maintaining order—the responsibility which British arms have been called upon to undertake, without which it would not be possible for the very large increase in the Jewish population in Palestine, and without which there would be no prospect of a Jewish National Home, whatever interpretation one can put upon that. Following these murders, there has been a vicious circle of terror and retaliation, with resultant loss of life in Palestine, and the outbreak of anti-Jewish feeling in this

1387
country, which in turn has resulted in rioting and much anti-Semitism.
I would like to say how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate who intervened in this debate, in what he said concerning the attitude of His Majesty's Government and the people of this country to those who participate in such actions. It is quite contrary to British feeling and British justice. I feel that I ought to say that this is a danger signal which cannot be ignored. I would that those who are charged with responsibilities in Palestine (I refer particularly to the Jewish Agency) could have their attention specially drawn to such actions as we have seen in this country during the last few weeks. I think I can assure British Jewry that these actions are the actions of misguided persons, who have not the support and sympathy of the British people in their conduct. It is useless to attempt to justify those persons who are responsible by indulging in acts some 3,000 or 4,000 miles away from the scene of the outrages in Palestine.
When this question was last debated in your Lordships' House, I dealt very fully with the effect which illegal immigration had upon the present situation in Palestine. On this occasion I will say no more than that the worst threat to good relations is the continuance of this illegal campaign which is not only hardening but embittering the Arab feeling, and is also stirring up a passion and hatred against the British, and particularly the British administration in Palestine. I agree entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord who spoke last. I do not propose to deal fully with illegal immigration, because I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Long, if he will read the remarks which I made on that occasion, will find that I did give concrete evidence of the source of revenue without which this illegal practice could not be continued. I know of no Communist organization—not that I should—which is behind it. I am convinced that if financial support were withheld from the United States, illegal immigration could not be carried out to the extent to which it has been practised during the course of the last eighteen months, if at all. Further financial assistance from the United States, and possibly some from other countries, has provided for the very large increase in this traffic.
1388
The very worst case of course is that of the ship President Warfield." That is a ship of 1,800 gross standard tonnage, which carried no fewer than 4,600 illegal immigrants. The attempt was made to land them in Palestine, and they are now housed in merchant ships of a tonnage of some 26,000 tons off the coast of France. The passengers in this ship left France with forged Colombian visas, in defiance of French regulations and of the requirements of the international conventions for the safety of life at sea and respecting the Plimsoll Line or load lines. As I said on a previous occasion, some of these ships would never have reached the Palestinian coast had it not been for the assistance which they received from the Royal Navy. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in Paris at the time of the ship's departure, and in fairness to the French Government I should say that this ship was held up in France for nearly three months as a result of the attitude of the French Government. She did not leave with the approval or the consent of the French Government, but slipped her cables about three o'clock, or very early one morning. She did not leave with the number of immigrants in her which arrived in the territorial waters of Palestine. These ships leave ports in France or Italy and at different points on the voyage collect more immigrants. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised this matter with the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, and His Majesty's Government have since maintained close contact with the French Government through the British Embassy in Paris.
The situation which has arisen has placed His Majesty's Government in a very difficult position. As noble Lords know, illegal immigrants who have been intercepted are taken to Cyprus. It is not that His Majesty's Government are unsympathetic to the entry of illegal immigrants into Palestine, for since the end of the quota of 75,000 under the White Paper no fewer than 30,000 immigrants have been received in Palestine and at the present time there are waiting in Cyprus some 15,000 or 16,000 persons who attempted illegally to enter Palestine. That number does not include those who are at present off the South Coast of France on the three ships to which I have referred. This matter is very costly and

1389
expensive to His Majesty's Government; it is no use pretending that it is not. We have to keep a number of ships of the Royal Navy on patrol, and there is no ship which arrives in Palestine conveying illegal immigrants that we consider fit to take them from Palestine to Cyprus. Indeed, we have to provide something like three or four times the accommodation, because we would never expect persons to travel in such miserable unseaworthy hulks as those in which the persons responsible for this illegal immigration expect the illegal immigrants to travel. I wonder sometimes whether this is done purely for propaganda purposes, bearing in mind the possibility of something happening.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked me whether the French forbade the ship to leave. Of course they did. The guards, however, were inadequate, and the cables were cut and the ship left. The noble Viscount then asked who feeds the immigrants. During the voyage from Palestine back to France, of course, His Majesty's Government were responsible, and the people were fed by ships' stores. Since their arrival in France they have been fed by French charitable organizations, and that is the position at the present time. There has been some criticism about the way in which those illegal immigrants are housed. I gave your Lordships the conditions under which they travelled to Palestine and I leave to your Lordships' imagination the conditions under which they are existing at the present time.
The attitude of the French Government is that they are quite prepared to receive these immigrants if they leave the ships voluntarily. They have camps provided for them, but they have informed His Majesty's Government that they will not take steps to remove them forcibly. Up to the present time there are some 130 who have left these ships. It may be, as a result of much propaganda in the ships which could not be prevented, that those who occupy the ships at the present time imagine that if they wait or stay long enough they will be taken either to Palestine or to Cyprus. Even at the expense of repetition of what was said by the Colonial Under-Secretary in another place last night, I do say that it is the present intention of His Majesty's Government that those 4,400 illegal im-
1390
migrants aboard those illegal ships will not be taken either to Palestine or to Cyprus. We do hope that they themselves will realize what the position is.
Noble Lords will remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said that he was satisfied that the High Commissioner's powers, as explained by the Colonial Secretary in another place yesterday—and, indeed, the powers given to the military—are sufficient. Therefore there is hardly any need for me to reply now to that question, other titan to take up the point which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I was always under the impression fiat he, with his vast experience, thought that matters of this kind should be left largely to the men on the spot, provided that they have all the powers which are necessary. I want to assure him that in order to deal with an emergency no powers are withheld, and that there is complete collaboration between the military and the civil authorities. If, of course, there is time for consultation on matters of long-term policy, then consultations take place between them.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Would the noble Viscount forgive my interrupting? I should hate to think that anything I slid could be interpreted as meaning that I suggested any interference with the discretion of the men on the spot. That was the last thing which I intended. I am sure that the decision should be left to them. But having been a man on the spot myself I know that what the man on the spot can do depends very much upon the atmosphere of the Government at home, and whether he is going to be supported out and out in whatever he does. That was the point I wished to make.
VISCOUNT HALL: I can give the noble Lord an assurance, with possibly one exception, and that was the one to which he referred—namely, collective fines. As that is so, I shall not deal further with that particular question.
The noble Viscount then asked me what was the position of isolated cases of persons who are travelling, or who have to undertake responsibilities, and whether the Security Forces are sufficient to protect them. In the nature of things it is not always possible to guarantee the security of our Forces when they are

1391
engaged upon certain operations. Travel on roads is confined to essential duty or to journeys in convoys. When travelling, a party of British civilians, if not in convoy, must apply for and obtain appropriate armed escort. No officer or man is allowed to go outside his camp unarmed; nor is he allowed outside the camp or security zone unless accompanied by three others who are all armed. All vehicles carry at least one armed man beside the driver, and in dangerous areas they always move in pairs. Every possible protection is given to troops on any particular task in the cities. Moreover, in towns military and police patrol the streets that are within bounds.
Instructions have been sent out to make it clear that there are no circumstances in which security instructions can be waived, other than by order from the highest authority. Troops have not been allowed to go into cinemas, restaurants or other public places. It will be realized that these regulations are very irksome and restrictive. They are, however, considered necessary in view of the situation in Palestine. May I here join with other noble Lords who have intervened in this debate in expressing again, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the greatest appreciation of the forbearance, patience, and bravery with which not only the troops but the police and civilian authorities are undertaking their difficult and very distasteful task?
The question of Martial Law has been raised. I do not know whether the inference was that Martial Law should apply throughout the whole of Palestine. Those of your Lordships who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, have had long experience in Palestine, particularly appreciate what it would mean in numbers of troops and expense to apply Martial Law throughout the whole of Palestine. Indeed, there is scarcely any need; for, after all, it must be remembered that two-thirds of the population in Palestine are Arabs, and little has been said about the Arab situation during the course of this debate. Fortunately up to the present time, with one or two exceptions, the Arabs have been orderly, and indeed have assisted the civilian administration in every possible way. Had it been possible to obtain the co-operation of the Jewish community terrorism could not have lasted very long.
1392
It is true, as has been said, that terrorist groups in Palestine are made up of a small number of fanatical persons who assume that acts such as they are carrying out will bring nearer the solution of the Palestine problem. The trouble is that not only do they carry out these acts but they terrorize almost the whole of the Jewish community. If the Jewish Agency, in addition to expressing their sympathy and passing resolutions to throw in the whole of their support whole-heartedly, could bring Haganah into full and complete co-operation, terrorists would not remain in Palestine any longer than they would remain in this country if the whole community were in opposition to them. That is the difficulty in Palestine at the present time, and that is why the defence emergency regulations now contain a regulation by which a form of statutory Martial Law can be imposed in certain areas when required. This is considered more satisfactory than Martial Law, because the authorities can cordon off various areas and take complete control of them, as has been done in Tel Aviv and in Nathanya.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked whether I could say something concerning the outrage at the Labour Office in Jerusalem. This outrage took place shortly before the time at which the Office closed. It is a building which is situated in the Jewish area of Jerusalem, and in the present security conditions only Palestinian staff work there. At irregular times, and under escort, supervisory visits are made by members of British executive authorities, who carry on their own office duties from a security zone. The entry of visitors during office hours is controlled by doorkeepers, who were held up by the terrorists, but the alarm signal for clearing the building of staff—the majority of whom were present at the time when the bomb was placed—functioned successfully, with the result that casualties were reduced to a very small proportion. Outside office hours the building is guarded by two civilian Palestinian watchmen. It will be recognized, however, that it is impossible to guard every Government office, other than those in the security zones, sufficiently to prevent the entry of a determined gang of attackers or saboteurs, and that the most that can be done is to provide for speedy and orderly evacuation in case of danger.

1393
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, raised the question of collective fines and he referred, too, to the fact that the whole of the community was to blame. I am sure that he did not include the Arab community when he made that reference.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I said the Jewish community.
VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Lord followed it up by referring to the Jewish community. He also referred to the petrol tax which is being levied for the purpose of compensating the oil company for the destruction of their refinery. That, in itself, discloses the difficulty of applying collective fines. If you apply fines by way of taxation, whether it is indirect or direct, it is difficult to eliminate certain sections of the community. That difficulty has been brought out in relation to the petrol tax. It would be difficult not to levy that tax upon all petrol which was sold in Palestine, and again, let me repeat, two-thirds of the population of Palestine are, of course, Arabs. The estimated amount which is raised in the tax upon the Arabs is returned to the Arabs; it is difficult to return it in the form of cash, but it is returned to the Arabs in the form of assisting in their social services and I think in a way upon which agreement has been reached. It is true, of course, that in the time of the Arab difficulty there was a tax of this kind levied, but it was not easy to collect it, and one of the problems with which the Government are faced is that of discriminating, which is so difficult. That matter has been considered and those difficulties——
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Will the noble Viscount forgive me for intervening, but I would like to say that if it is possible to impose a collective fine upon the limited community of Arabs, it surely is also possible to impose a collective fine upon the community of Jews. Arabs are exempted from the fine. If the fine should be imposed within a limited area, everybody would pay at that rate.
VISCOUNT HALL: I wish it was as easy as appears to be to the mind of the noble Lord, but I can assure him that this matter has received a good deal of consideration.
I now come to what after all is the wider question of policy affecting Palestine. Your Lordships will be
1394
conscious of the fact that the United Nations Special Committee have been collecting material for their report. The Committee arrived in Palestine during the middle of June, toured the country extensively, and received evidence from a very large number of people. Public evidence was taken from the Jews only. The Palestine Arabs had decided to boycott the proceedings, but the Committee spent the last few days of their time in the Middle East receiving evidence from the Arab States. They concluded their evidence on the 23rd July when they left for Geneva, where the committee are now engaged in the preparation of their report. There are prospects than: the report will be submitted on 1st September, so your Lordships will see that a further expression of view on Palestine policy in general will not be possible until the Committee's report has been received and examined.
I fully appreciate the dangers of delay, but I would like to recall to the minds of noble Lords the action of His Majesty's Government. When it was discovered that it was impossible to bring about an agreement as a result of the conferences held by His Majesty's Government with the Jews and Arabs, or at least those who would attend in this country, His Majesty's Government; with the full consent of this House arid another place, referred the matter to the United Nations and sought a special meeting of the Assembly for the purpose of preparing for a decision to be taken in the September meetings. In taking that initiative in the matter, His Majesty's Government have saved at least twelve months. It is hoped that a decision will be arrived at——
LORD ALTRINCHAM: In September?
VISCOUNT HALL: At the September meetings or the autumn meetings of the General Assembly of the United Nations. May I express a hope that the findings of the Committee will bring a complete solution and one just to both parties, capable of helping to assure the peaceful progress of the Middle East, for peace in Palestine is a matter of real concern to the whole world?
VISCOUNT LONG: Will the noble Viscount forgive me, but I would like to put one question. There have been some statements to the effect that the indiscriminate shooting from a car in Tel Aviv was due to our own military or police

1395
personnel. I believe that has been contradicted in another place. I hope the noble Viscount can confirm that contradiction that our men had nothing to do with it.
VISCOUNT HALL: I can confirm that, so far as the military are concerned, they had nothing at all to do With it. A suggestion was then made that the Palestine Police was in some way responsible, but an inquiry is now being held in connexion with that matter. Until we know the result of the inquiry, no statement can be made about it.
VISCOUNT LONG: The Army is not involved?
VISCOUNT HALL: No.
LORD GRENFELL: Could I possibly have an answer to the question of the reduction of the Armed Forces in Palestine? Could I have an assurance that they will not be reduced in Palestine?
VISCOUNT HALL: I am afraid it is impossible for me to give the noble Lord such an assurance. I think it would be very wrong to give any information with regard to the disposition of the Forces, whether in Palestine or anywhere else where there is such trouble as there is in Palestine. I am afraid it is impossible to give the noble Lord a reply to his question.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, if for no other reason this debate has been justified by the speech of the noble Viscount; and I am sure your Lordship will agree with me in thanking him for a detailed and long speech of immense interest. He has cleared up many points which have been in dispute. And, if I may be allowed to do so, I would like to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for the great speech we have had from him this morning. In view of the time and of the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty has taken so much trouble to give the House a detailed report, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes past one o'clock and resumed at half past two.]

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Appropriation,

Town and Country Planning (Scotland),

Electricity,

Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes),

North Cumberland Water Board,

Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences,

Preston Corporation,

London County Council (General Powers),

London Passenger Transport Board.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE RECESS: ADJOURNMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9.
2.48 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, October 14. I may explain to your Lordships that the reason for this date of October 14, is that that is the date of the normal judicial sitting of the House.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn until October 14.—(Lord Ammon).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out the words "Tuesday, October 14" and insert "Tuesday, September 9." In moving this Amendment I can assure the Government, if they need such an assurance, that we, on this side of the House, are not acting in any Party spirit or with the mere object of causing any embarrassment to the Government. We have, I I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House, taken a moderate and, I hope, a statesmanlike attitude towards the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act. Although we have protested against the extent of the powers which are given to the Government, especially under Section 1 (1) (c), we have been at pains not to give any legitimate grounds for any charge that we have made it impossible for the Government to use what means they feel desirable to tackle this crisis with which the country is faced.

1397
But there is no doubt that the introduction of this legislation, with the very wide powers which it confers, and at a time when Parliament is separating for the Summer Recess for over two months, has exposed what I may perhaps describe as rather a serious defect in the constitutional machinery of this country, which I think it is for Parliament as far as they can to try to remedy. In the old days, of course, practically all legislation was by Act of Parliament, and Parliament went through every word of every clause of that legislation. In such circumstances there was fully effective protection for the community. But within recent years (and I am not referring merely to the period during which the present Government have been in power) there has been a new development—namely, the growth of delegated legislation. As your Lordships know very well, blanket powers are given to Ministers to make Orders within the limitations of the main Acts and as soon as they are made those Orders come into active operation. It is quite true that under the Constitution they must be laid before Parliament, and, as your Lordships know, either House can pray against them.
That is, of course, some protection when Parliament is sitting, but if Parliament is not sitting Orders may become operative weeks or even months, before Parliament can consider them. I should think that it would be generally agreed by noble Lords in every part of the House, whatever they may feel about this measure which we have so lately been considering, that that is not an entirely satisfactory situation. Indeed, it is a very unsatisfactory situation. It is to meet this new difficulty that we are proposing that, if necessary, this House, at any rate, should meet at convenient intervals during the Recess to examine such Orders.
No doubt the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor would point out, if I did not, that in these circumstances this House cannot pray against Orders, because Orders have to be laid before Parliament; and if only one House happens to be in Session they clearly cannot be so laid. In those conditions all the House can do is to examine and discuss them when they come out. That would be, or it might be, a useful function for us to perform. An earlier meeting of this kind, under the existing rather anxious conditions, might have this
1398
additional advantage: It might well give opportunity, if such were required, for general discussion of developments in the economic situation since the House last sat; that is, since to-day.
I would not for a moment suggest that we should have a sort of general session of this House, in which every kind and sort of question might be raised—in which there might be debates on foreign affairs. debates on this or debates on that. That, I think, would be entirely inappropriate. The general development in the economic situation would be very closely allied to this Act which has been lately under discussion, and a general discussion of that kind might be quite proper. That is the reason why I am moving this Amendment to the Motion for the Adjournment. It has seemed to us—that is, to those noble Lords whom I represent—that September 9 would be a suitable date for the next meeting of the House. For one thing, it will give almost a month for noble Lords and for the officers of the House to get that rest and refreshment which hey obviously need after the labours of the summer. It will also give time for the Government to initiate such steps as they may think proper to deal with the situation which has been developing.
We on this side of the House fully recognize that, owing to important public duties abroad, it will not be possible for the Lord Chancellor himself, or for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to be present on September 9. We entirely understand the reasons. No doubt there will be some other members of the Government Front Bench who will be able to officiate in their absence. I believe that the proposal which I am putting will be generally welcomed, both in this House and also outside, as evidence that your Lordships are willing to give what assistance you can to the alleviation of our present troubles, and also as evidence that we are prepared and determined to play our full part in maintaining the authority of Parliament. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("October 14") and insert ("September 9").—(The Marquess of Salisbury. )
2.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches will desire to

1399
support the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition. The reasons for this Amendment have been so fully and so ably stated by the noble Marquess that it is unnecessary for me to do more than say that we agree with them and regard them as conclusive. I hope that it is to be made quite clear that, if this House is summoned to meet again on September 9, it will only be for anything more than a formal sitting if some business of urgent importance has arisen meanwhile. The noble Marquess, I am sure, does not intend, and the House does not wish, that we should meet again in order to engage in the discussion of more or less normal business which may happen to have accrued meanwhile. We have had a very long and very arduous Session with a great deal of massive legislation, and I think that members of your Lordships' House, as well as officials, are entitled to a sufficient rest.
Public spirit is a great virtue, and a high sense of Parliamentary duty is greatly to be praised. But like other virtues, that ought not to be carried to extravagant excess. So we may hope that on September 9 it may be necessary only to summon here a quorum of the House, which is, as we know, three members. Three self-sacrificing members of your Lordships' House, preferably those who are accustomed to be in receipt of salaries, should he willing to attend in order to constitute a sitting of the Chamber.
I do not know what attitude the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will take on this Amendment. I can well understand that the Government would be in some difficulty in either proposing such an Amendment themselves or in formally agreeing to it if similar action is not being taken by the other House. Therefore, it may be that the noble and learned Viscount will view this Amendment without enthusiasm, but I hope the Government, if they do not agree, will at all events acquiesce.
2.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships on these Benches are really becoming very revolutionary. I and my Party are old-fashioned Constitutionalists in this matter and I am bound to point out that, so far as I know, this has never been done before. Quite
1400
frankly, being an old Constitutionalist, as we all are, I distrust this innovation. I doubt its wisdom. Your Lordships are very anxious to maintain the dignity and prestige of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships must ask yourselves whether the question before the House is likely to achieve that end. If the answer to that question, which you must have formulated yourselves, is in the affirmative, well then, so be it. The noble Viscount who spoke last, the Leader of the Liberal Party, anticipated that though I could not accede, I should acquiesce.
The constitutional position is quite plain. It is for each House (I am reading from Erskine May) to exercise its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown (which means the Government of the day) and of the other House. That is the constitutional position which I have to advise your Lordships exists. I would, however, like to point out that on August 10, 1914, which was just after the outbreak of the First World War, this House resolved that
"whenever during the present Session of Parliament the House stands adjourned for more than two days and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor may give notice to the Peers that he is to satisfied and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice and transact business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."
Since that date alterations have been made in that Motion. The Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is now frequently included, together with the Lord Chancellor, and since 1931 the Motion has been so made that the Lord Chancellor or the Chairman of Committees cannot act save after consultation with the Government. In its more modern form, in practice I understand it means that this is done with the approval of the Government. But I would point out that under the 1914 Resolution it was left to the Lord Chancellor to act independently and call your Lordships back if, and only if, in his or their opinion there was some case for so doing.
Frankly, I do not agree with the noble Marquess that the modern tendency of delegated legislation is any justification. When I have read books about "The New Despotism," I have thought that in the interest of historical accuracy it should be stated that that despotism is

1401
very old indeed and reached its height in the time of the Tudors. It is quite inaccurate to refer to it as the new despotism—despotism, if you will, but not new. And our ancestors, who did not adopt this course, were fully alive to the danger which the noble Marquess seeks to guard against. While it is of course for this House to decide to what date it will adjourn—and, I should not dream of standing in the way; your Lordships' wishes must be supreme in this matter—it is for the Government to decide what they will do when the House does meet. I am exceedingly sorry that the Leader of the House, Viscount Addison, is away. I am sure the wishes of all the members of this House go with him on his voyage, and I think at his age it shows great pluck and enterprise to undertake the very arduous and difficult task he has undertaken. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, is going, as your Lordships know, as a Parliamentary delegate to China and he also will not be present. And I, my Lords, am in a difficult position in that I have been asked both by the American and Canadian Bar Associations to go to America. It entails making a very large number of speeches and travelling pretty well over the Continent. Though I have considered in my own mind whether I ought to abandon that project, my own colleagues and those of your Lordships opposite who have been good enough to discuss this with me take the view that I ought to adhere to my decision and to go as the guest of the American and Canadian Bar Associations. I only mention these matters in order to apologize that I and my noble friends will not be able to be here. I have no doubt we shall do all we can to facilitate matters. I hope that your Lordships will understand that so far as the servants of this House are concerned it would be desirable to interfere as little as possible with their holidays, and if we find when the day comes that we are understaffed I am sure your Lordships will forgive it and realize the reason.
With that, would point out that in any event it will not be possible to pray against any Order. You cannot do that. All you can do is to debate an Order, but the question of a Prayer cannot arise. It is therefore no sort of solution of the constitutional problem, if constitutional problem there be, as it is a fact that
1402
these Regulations come into force and have effect unless and until a Prayer is passed. A Prayer cannot be under taken when your Lordships meet on September 9. I have pointed these facts out. Your Lordships have told me that you desire to meet again on September g. It is your Lordships' undoubted right to decide to which date you will adjourn, and, conscious as I am that the large majority desire this date, I shall do nothing to try to oppose the proposal. I will acquiesce in the proposal which has been made and we shall learn by experience and see how it works.
3.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I would not have intervened had not the noble Viscount in the course of his speech thought fit to point out a matter of historical accuracy. It is no doubt quite true that in the time of Henry VIII a Statute of Proclamation attempted to provide that the King should be able to Issue orders of the nature of laws without Parliamentary authority at all, a very bad precedent and one which we shall certainly not go back to. But it is just as well to remember that though that was true at the beginning of the Tudor period, it certainly was not possible at the end. I recall the answer of the schoolboy who was asked to illustrate the increase in power of the House of Commons during the period of the Tudors. The schoolboy replied that at the end of that period, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the House of Commons petitioned the Queen to marry—a thing, he said, which the House of Commons would never lave thought of doing in the reign of Henry VIII. The claim which was undoubtedly made in the period to which my noble and learned friend refers, and was made a little later, led to a very unfortunate incident in the time of Charles I, when he, in his turn, attempted to govern without Parliament.
Surely, the true position is this. I have never sought to state it too absolutely, or in too dogmatic a fashion. The truth is that it has been for a very long time past—in the lifetime of any of us, and going back beyond that—absolutely necessary to have in Statutes provisions that regulations should be made under the Statuses. You could not have an Education Bill, an Unemployment Insurance Bill, or a

1403
Factory Bill unless there were all sorts of regulations which were made under them—quite subordinate to them, but absolutely lawful, because the Statutes themselves provide for them. That is to say you give a certain discretion in matters of mere administration to the Department which is administrating the subjects. That is undoubtedly the case. I do not think Mr. Gladstone would have taken any objection to the provisions of the Education Act of 1870, which included provisions for regulations by the Board of Education. But that is quite a different thing—is it not?—from letting us slide into a situation in which more and more what is in effect legislation by regulation takes the place of what ought to be direct Parliamentary decision. It may be that it is inevitable that the cases should increase, because the complication of life increases, and even the most hard-working Parliament cannot manage to sit more than 365 days in a year—and possibly there are some who think that that would be an excessive time!
But there is a fundamental difference between the old idea that purely subordinate matters can be dealt with by regulations which are authorized by Parliament and the idea which is now unquestionably growing up. You may see it in its most emphatic form in some of the previous declarations of, let us say, Sir Stafford Cripps. To say that the moment a Socialist Government get a majority they ought on the first day to pass a Bill to confer on the Government powers to legislate on anything they like, and that after that Parliament should sit as little as possible, is a fundamentally different conception of what Parliament ought to do from the conception under which we have been brought up, and which most of us honestly desire to maintain. It is, therefore, not the case that we are dealing in this Act with cases where there may be just ordinary regulations, such as have been made for a long time past, and made of necessity by every great Department of State—the Home Office, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, and so on. That is not the case at all. It is recognized not to be the case, because it is admitted that there must be, at least, the possibility of Parliament negativing the regulation at the end, which itself is an admission that such regulations or instruments go beyond the
1404
mere detail of provisions for administration.
I venture to think, therefore, that while my noble and learned friend is perfectly right when he says there was a danger of a despotism in the time of Henry VIII, it has been the earnest endeavour of our ancestors to get rid of that danger of despotism; to keep it in bounds, and to make quite certain that it should not grow into something of the nature of a tyranny—government not by Parliament throughout the life of a Parliament, but government by the Executive once it has got its position for five years. That is the distinction. With that distinction in mind, I venture to think that the Amendment which has been put down by my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury is one which will commend itself to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.