Sitting of 30 July 1940

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  INTERNEES (DOMINIONS).
  Mr. Wedgwoodasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will make representations to try to secure the return to this country, or the liberation in Canada, of those class C aliens who were sent to Canada by mistake?
  Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Dominion Governments now responsible for alien refugees sent from this country have been given all the information available so that they may distinguish between the few who might be enemy agents and the many who have given proof, in German concentration camps and eleswhere, of their hatred of Hitler?
  Mr. Manderasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominon Affairs whether he will give an assurance that full information will be supplied to the Dominion Governments to which interned refugees are being sent, differentiating clearly between those who were interned for safety reasons and those who are considered refugees from Nazi oppression, and who are friendly and loyal to the Allied cause?
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has been in communication with Dominion Governments respecting the condition and treatment of internees sent from this country; whether he has obtained an assurance that internees shall not be treated overseas as hostile prisoners of war; and whether he has conveyed to
  1126
  those Governments the desirability of applying to internees the more improved and enlightened standards of treatment now becoming operative in this country?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. There is no risk of any confusion between prisoners of war and civilian internees sent to the Dominions. As regards the latter, my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the necessity for supplying to the Government of any Dominion to which internees have been, or may be, sent as much information as possible regarding them, in order to ensure proper discrimination in their treatment. A communication on the subject has already been sent to the Government of Canada, which is the only Dominion that has yet received any internees, and one will shortly be sent to Australia, to which country internees are now on their way. It is hoped to make arrangements, in consultation with the Governments of Canada and Australia, for the return to this country of those whose release can properly be authorised.
  Mr. Wedgwood: Are the Home Office alive to the fact that many of those sent out were marked "A" and have been interned, and might just as easily have been marked "C"; further, that they were interned marked "A" because of their Socialist actions, which are no longer a bar?
  Mr. Peake: I am aware of the fact stated by my right hon. Friend. We have already sent to Canada information as to the distinction to be drawn between the different categories, and we are following that information up with detailed information about each individual internee.
  Mr. Mander: Has any information been received from the Canadian Government as to the attitude they propose to take in regard to various categories of internees; and in any case that they will not place A, B and C men together in the same internment camp?
  Mr. Peake: We have advised the Canadian Government as to the distinction to be drawn, both as regards A, B and C, and as to the privileges to be afforded to the different categories.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can we have a report upon the conditions and treatment of these internees in Canada?
  Mr. Peake: Certainly; I am inviting the Dominion Government to send us a communication on that matter.
  Miss Rathbone: Unless the list is sent to the Dominion Governments, how can they tell which are A, B and C, etc.? It is very important that the detailed list should go very quickly, otherwise I do not see how the Dominions can distinguish between one category and another.
  Mr. Peake: They can distinguish, because when we were making shipment to the Dominion we placed the different categories upon different ships.
  Mr. Graham White: To whom should applications be addressed for the return of aliens wrongfully deported?
  Mr. Peake: We are arranging to issue a White Paper as to the release of internees and the normal procedure to be followed, that is to say, notification to the Home Office.
  Mr. Genvil Hall: Is it not a fact that many lads of 16 years of age have gone out? Could they not apply for release?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INDUSTRIAL ART AND DESIGN.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refuse to sanction the articles of association of the Central Institute of Art and Design and not allow it to function, pending consultation with all interests who are interested in any form; whether he is satisfied that the governing body responsible for the administration of the National Register of Industrial Art Designers is fully efficient; and whether he will review the whole question in the light of future needs?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): The Board of Trade have entertained an application made by the association under Section 18 of the Companies Act, 1929, to be registered, with the licence of the Board of Trade, as a company with limited liability, but without the addition of the word "Limited" to its name. In accordance with the usual procedure, an application so entertained has to be advertised in two successive weeks. Any objections which may be raised to the
    1128
    grant of the Board's licence are considered before the licence is granted, and if the hon. Member will forward to me a statement of the objections on which his Question is based, I will see that they are fully considered. I have no reason to think that the governing body of the National Register of Industrial Art Designers is in any way inadequate, nor have I received representations on this subject.
    Mr. Smith: I do not propose to take this matter any further, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to hold up the articles of association, pending further representations being made.
    Sir A. Duncan: I shall be very glad to consider any representations.

    COAL EXPORTS.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the reduction in exports due to the loss of French and Italian markets; and whether he has any plans for the creation of new markets to make up the deficiency?
    Sir A. Duncan: Coal was by far the largest item of our exports both to France and Italy. Since the war, the total volume of all exports to France had much increased, and considerable changes also took place in the make-up of the trade, owing to France's situation and war needs: In this period, indeed, our exports were made more to assist our Ally in the struggle against the common enemy than for commercial reasons, and the loss of the French market must not therefore be regarded as comparable in its effects with the loss of a neutral market taking a similar amount of exports. A considerable proportion of the goods exported to France would have been very valuable to our own war effort. Every effort is being made to find other markets for those goods which do not fall into this category. Of these, coal is much the most important and, as my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines stated in reply to a Question on 23rd July, the coal industry is being consulted as to the best methods to promote this trade.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the loss of the French market is

    1129
    of little consequence, despite the fact that we exported coal and other commodities which are of primary importance; and can he rely entirely on the good will and the efforts of the coal industry in regard to facilities in the search for new markets?
    Sir A. Duncan: I have not said, and I hope I have not implied, that the loss of the French market is of little consequence.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the export of goods to France meant very little to us in war-time?
    Sir William Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the appeal that people should store coal or coke, it is impossible in many parts of England to get coal or coke, and that this is a source of purchase which is available?
    Sir A. Duncan: I hope I did make it clear that our export trade to France for the last few months consisted in part of many things which would have been welcome at home, and that the loss of the market of France in those products is not really a loss to us at all. On the other hand, for the other part, which we would gladly export to France, it will be our task to find an alternative market.

    BANK HOLIDAY (CANCELLATION.)
    Mr. Pymasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the desire of the Government that business establishments throughout the country should remain open on Monday, 5th August, particularly having regard to the difficulties which may otherwise result in the reception of goods?
    Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. August Bank Holiday has been cancelled by Defence Regulations, and it is the wish of the Government that business should proceed normally on that day. I would add that, on any day on which it may be found necessary to close establishments for repair or cleaning or other reasons, it is desirable, in the national interest, that arrangements should be made for the reception of goods, in order to avoid both wastage of labour, time and fuel, and also to avoid delays in the clearance of traffic.

  ECONOMIC WARFARE.

    CONTRABAND CONTROL (NAVICERTS).
    Mr. Bartlettasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether, in view of the fact that German occupation now extends to the Spanish frontier, a system of contraband control will be instituted over the imports of Spain and Portugal?
    Mr. Charles Brownasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any statement to make concerning new measures to enforce the blockade?
    The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): With the permission of my hon. Friends, I will answer these Questions together in a statement at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    Mr. Dalton: German occupation of the West European coastline from the North Cape to the Pyrenees has greatly changed the conditions of the economic war. The German Armies have succeeded in overrunning large parts of Western Europe, but the overseas imports which they require are still barred from the seas commanded by the Royal Navy. Many fewer ships are now engaged on legitimate neutral trade between Europe and the Americas. Moreover, we must now control, not only shipping approaching the Mediterranean or the North Sea, but all shipping crossing the Atlantic. To apply this control in the old way would mean diverting many ships far out of their course to contraband bases in British waters, either in this island or in West Africa. To avoid imposing such grave inconveniences upon shippers, shipowners and crews, His Majesty's Government have decided to extend the navicert system to all seaborne goods consigned to any European port, as well as to certain Atlantic islands and to certain neutral ports in North Africa. In future ships sailing from a neutral port to any such destination must obtain navicerts for all items of cargo, and in addition a ship navicert at the last port of loading. Any consignment not navicerted and any ship without a ship navicert, will henceforth be liable to seizure by our patrols. The same rules will apply to outgoing trade. Ships sailing from European ports, or from certain Atlantic islands, or from certain neutral ports in North Africa must have certificates of non-enemy origin for

    1131
    all items of their cargoes, and any ship whose cargo is not fully certificated will be liable to be seized together with all uncertificated items of the cargo. An Order-in-Council giving effect to these changes will be issued forthwith.
    It has been suggested in some quarters that we intend to extend the blockade to certain neutral countries. This is not so. Where supplies can reach such neutrals without the risk of falling into the hands of the enemy we shall grant navicerts on such a scale as to allow imports adequate for domestic consumption, but not for reexport to other countries. Moreover, it will be the policy of His Majesty's Government not merely to allow such adequate supplies to pass through our controls, but to assist neutral countries to obtain them. These measures will greatly benefit those engaged in honest neutral trade. Delays in such trade, due to the exercise of our controls, will be much reduced. At the same time, a heavy blow will be struck at those who seek to elude our controls and to carry supplies either to or from the enemy. Our friends will be further encouraged, and our enemies discomforted, by some ingenious provisions which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Shipping will, I understand, immediately announce.
    Finally, I would recall that on 2nd July I informed the House that contraband control had been extended to French territory under enemy control and that no goods were being allowed to reach the enemy through unoccupied France. After a most careful review of all the circumstances, His Majesty's Government have now decided, with regret, that in present conditions they must treat all metropolitan France, as well as Algeria, Tunisia and French Morocco, in the same manner, for the purposes of contraband and enemy export control, as enemy-controlled territory. Goods destined for these territories are, therefore, liable to be seized as contraband and goods originating in, or owned by persons in, such territories, are liable to be placed in prize. These steps, which I have now announced, are designed to smooth the path of genuine neutral trade, while increasing the strength of our blockade and avoiding all unnecessary calls upon the Royal Navy.

    SPAIN (OIL IMPORTS).
    Mr. Silkinasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether shipments of oil and oil-products to Spain from America are greatly in excess of last year's quantities; whether he has information to show that oil is reaching Germany from Spain; and whether he will give an assurance that every endeavour will be made to ensure that no more oil reaches Spain than she legitimately requires for her own normal consumption?
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is taking steps to prevent the importation into Spain of oil in excess of her normal requirements?
    Mr. Dalton: Shipments of oil and oil products to Spain from America during the first half of this year have been substantially greater than during the corresponding period of last year. Before the collapse of France the only route by which oil could reach Germany from Spain was by sea across the Western Mediterranean and through Italy, and we relied upon French naval patrols to prevent such traffic. Since the collapse of France many features of the situation have become obscure, and I am sending an officer of my Ministry to Spain this week in order to confer with the Spanish authorities and with His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid. The desire of His Majesty's Government is to enable Spain to receive adequate supplies of oil for her own internal consumption, but not for re-export, and to maintain her oil stocks at a reasonable and steady level.
    Mr. Silkin: In view of the fact that the exports for this year are greater than last year, is it not obvious that Spain has been allowed to accumulate stocks of oil which may possibly be used against us?
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: In view of the fact that Spain is non-belligerent, why give her any oil at all?
    Mr. Dalton: In the light of the answer that I gave, I think it is evident that the stocks of oil in Spain are likely to be at a higher level now than they were a year ago, and it is precisely to investigate this and kindred matters that I am sending my oil adviser to Spain.
    Mr. Lipson: Then I presume the hon. Gentleman's answer means that the stocks in Spain will be taken into account in determining how much will be allowed to go to Spain in future? Will he give an assurance that Spain will not be allowed to play the part which Italy played prior to her entry into the war?
    Mr. Dalton: The stocks of oil, when ascertained, will obviously be an element in determining the future import requirements. With regard to Italy, I hope we have all learned a lesson from that experience.
    Mr. Wedgwood: Can we ensure that the credits we are making to Spain will not be used to purchase oil?
    Mr. Dalton: I think that is a different question, and I am not sure that it falls within my Department.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any information on the imports of lubricating oil into Spain; and whether he has any reason to believe that some portion of this oil is passing into German hands?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I have a good deal of information on the subject of these imports. I have no evidence of reexports of lubricating oil to Germany, but stocks in Spain appear to be so high relatively to domestic consumption that no navicerts are now being issued.
    Mr. Shinwell: While appreciating the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, is he not aware that many months ago it was decided to operate navicerts in order to prevent contraband proceeding to neutral countries which might pass into the hands of the enemy, and why, after all the activity in relation to oil, has he now decided to take action or why has action not been taken very much sooner?
    Mr. Dalton: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend will get some part of the answer to his inquiry if he will await the statement which I shall make at the end of Questions on the navicert question generally.
    Mr. Shinwell: But does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we were told quite categorically that the navicert system was to be put into operation in January last, and now, many months afterwards, we are still discussing whether it is to be put into operation?
    Mr. Dalton: The navicerts have not been compulsory up to now. They have been a convenience availed of by certain shippers and shipowners. I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait for my statement at the end of Questions.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Has His Majesty's Ambassador in Spain been requested to inquire of the Spanish Government whether they are selling oil to our enemies across the Pyrenees? Whether the answer is in the negative or in the affirmative, will it not provide the right hon. Gentleman with a basis for action?
    Mr. Dalton: I have already stated in answer to a previous Question that I am sending an officer out to make contact with the Spanish Government.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that at this time, when America decided to restrict the supply of oil to Spain, the Government made an agreement with Spain which provides for the supply of oil?
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is completely deluded.

    AMERICAN SURPLUS PRODUCTS.
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he will consider what steps can be taken to assist the Government of the United States of America in securing markets for, or holding over for a time, the surplus products of the American Continent?
    Mr. Dalton: The question of surpluses in relation to the blockade is under continuous examination by my Ministry. A Ministerial sub-committee of the Economic Policy Committee has recently been set up to formulate policy on this question in its wider aspects. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the question has recently been discussed at the Havana Conference. His Majesty's Government have already intimated to the United States Government their great interest in the general question of world surpluses and their readiness to co-operate in the study of any possible solution of the problems.

    "ARANDORA STAR."
    Mr. Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will order an inquiry into the discipline and circumstances connected with the loss of anti-Nazi Germans and anti-Fascist Italians in

    1135
    the "Arandora Star," in particular as to the putting up of a Nazi flag in a mess-room and forcing the anti-Nazis to salute it, and the locking up of 200 below at the time of the sinking?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Eden): I have made inquiries, and have been unable to obtain confirmation of the alleged incident as to the Nazi flag. I am definitely assured that no internees were locked up below decks or elsewhere.
    Mr. Wedgwood: Why was it that the survivors from the "Arandora Star" were immediately shipped off abroad before they could give any evidence or information?
    Mr. Eden: That is another question, but I have caused inquiries to be made of the chief officer of the ship, who was one of the gallant crew who did their best to save these people, and he is quite definite that nobody was locked up either below decks or anywhere else. His evidence is quite sufficient for me.
    Mr. Logan: Having seen the boat and the crew, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there was no Nazi flag flying on board that ship?
    Sir Irving Albery: Is it not regrettable that Questions of this kind should be put unless there is definite evidence justifying them?
    Mr. Wedgwood: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I think I am entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, to you, Sir, and to the House that it is a matter for the honour of this country that there should be nothing of this sort happening. There should be a full inquiry.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    FOREIGN VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any hope of the early formation of a foreign legion officered by British officers in which friendly aliens in this country, refused for the British Army, could enlist and obtain at least training and discipline?
    Mr. Eden: As I explained in the answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) on
    1136
    Tuesday last, French, Polish, Czech, Dutch, Norwegian and Belgian units are being organised and equipped, and friendly aliens who do not join any of these national forces may be enlisted in the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps. A number are so serving already.
    Mr. Wedgwood: There is no question, then, of their being allowed to serve actively?
    Mr. Eden: The Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps is serving actively.
    Mr. Wedgwood: Not with rifles.
    Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when he talks of friendly aliens, he is thinking of aliens who are friendly in the strict sense of the word, that is to say, in the territorial sense?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

    COUNTY REGIMENTS.
    Mr. Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the possibility that the war may be fought out on British soil, and of the consequent importance of a knowledge of local topography and conditions, he will, as far as military circumstances allow, keep county regiments in those counties whose names they bear?
    Mr. Eden: On reflection, I feel sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that his Question pre-supposes a static defence for the Field Army which does not accord with our present strategy.

    HIGHER COMMANDS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will bring to the notice of the Army Council the desirability of selecting from the lower ranks of serving officers of the Army a dozen or more officers, not above the rank of captain, who should be specially trained and afterwards appointed to take over higher command, in view of the importance of utilising the brains, imagination and initiative which exists amongst the thousands of officers now serving who have not attained field rink?
    Mr. Eden: All promotion to higher acting and temporary rank in war is by merit and not by seniority. There is, thus, every chance for the young officer of outstanding merit to reach higher rank.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that modern warfare requires both drive and initiative, and that antiquity and obsolete and defunct minds are quite useless?
    Mr. Eden: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to myself?
    Mr. De la Bère: No, Sir.
    Mr. Eden: As far as the General Staff and the general officers now commanding are concerned, I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's definition.
    Mr. De la Bère: But somebody must initiate the beginning in these matters.
    Captain Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many junior officers who are not Regular serving officers have the chance of rising much higher than major, even in this war?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman surely knows enough of the Army to answer that question for himself.

    HOME GUARD.
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Secretary of State for War why Mr. Steele, of Chalfont Heights, Buckinghamshire, an ex-service man, who applied in proper form about two months ago to join the Local Defence Volunteers, has not yet been enrolled, although the section for his area is under strength?
    Mr. Eden: I have ascertained that Mr. Steele's registration form was posted by the police to the company commander, but that the latter did not receive it. This is being explained to Mr. Steele, and he is being informed that he can now be enrolled.
    Mr. Hall: Is it not rather curious that this is the second instance in this area? These forms cannot always be going wrong. Will the right hon. Gentleman not instruct those in charge that political bias must not enter into the question?
    Mr. Speaker rose—
    Mr. Hall: Is there anything wrong in what I have asked?
    Mr. Speaker: It did not appear to me to need an answer.
    Mr. Hall: The Minister was getting up to answer it.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, but it does not follow that an answer was needed.
    Mr. Hall rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We must get on with the Questions. There are over 100 on the Paper.
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Local Defence Volunteers River Section, Thames Embankment, have been ordered by their company commander to provide themselves with uniform and kit, costing from £4 to £10, on the grounds that this has been prescribed by the authorities and has indicated that those unwilling to purchase kit in this way could resign; and whether this order has been issued with War Office sanction?
    Mr. Eden: I am informed that no such order as that suggested was given by the company commander, but that the members of the company themselves wished to wear the blue reefer jacket and trousers and yachting cap which they all possess.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickhamasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are contemplated to provide the means of livelihood for Local Defence Volunteers and their families should the former be called up for a period of days, or longer, in order to assist in repelling attempts at invasion?
    Mr. Eden: The Home Guard is a voluntary, unpaid, part-time force, and its members will not normally be absent from their homes, except for their ordinary spells of duty. It is recognised, however, that circumstances may arise in the event of an attempt at invasion when, as a result of the exigencies of the military situation and in areas directly affected by the attempted invasion, volunteers may not be able to rejoin their families for a few days or even for more extended periods. In such circumstances, the military authorities will accept full responsibility for feeding the volunteers themselves, and provision will be available for their families, if they are in need.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware of the very important point that many of these men are out night after night, and have to go to work the following day? Should not something be done to meet their case?
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider providing Army footwear to members of the Home Defence as, during the coming winter, good strong boots will be necessary to keep them fit for the duties they will undertake?
    Mr. Eden: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that members of the Home Guard are to be supplied with boots.
    Mr. Tinker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to complete the whole supply that is required?
    Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the Secretary of State for War supply first country areas where men have to go through long grass during the night and have to go to work in the same boots the next day?
    Mr. Eden: I will look into that matter.
    Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something?
    Mr. George Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that miners who leave their shoes and clogs at the pit have these shoes first?
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an ex-soldier who joins the Home Guard is not allowed to wear his discharge badge on his uniform; what order prevents such a man from showing that he was a member of His Majesty's Forces; and will he state the reason for such disallowance?
    Mr. Eden: The silver war badge was instituted in 1916 for those who had been discharged as physically unfit, and was intended for wear with civilian clothes. It was later permitted to be worn with uniform by those who rejoined, but this concession was withdrawn in 1922, when the wearing of wound stripes and chevrons denoting overseas service also ceased.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that when members of the Home Guard are on night duty many of them have to go on to their employment before they go home; and will he consider allowing some form of grant to each unit to meet the
    1140
    expense they are put to at the present time to supply needed refreshment in such cases?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have been made whereby a member of the Home Guard is eligible for a subsistence allowance of 1s. 6d. for a continuous period of duty of between five and ten hours, and of 3s. for a continuous period of duty in excess of ten hours.

    COAST DEFENCE WORKS.
    Mr. Windsorasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ensure that in the construction of coast defence works there shall be prior consultation between the civil and military authorities, so that work completed by the former at considerable expense shall not be subsequently condemned by the latter?
    Mr. Eden: Instructions have been issued, as a result of which I am confident that the civil authorities are now aware that these works should not be erected without prior consultation with the military authorities.

    PRIVATE SOLDIER (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to state the decision arrived at in the case of Private R. C. Williamson, concerning whom a promise was made, on 28th May, that a report would be made on his case by the county tuberculosis officer?
    Mr. Eden: Arrangements were made for Private Williamson to go into hospital yesterday for examination by the county tuberculosis officer. I regret the delay, which has been due to the fact that the unit has been on the move, but in the meantime the soldier has been reported to be in excellent health.
    Mr. Mander: In view of the very long delay, extending over many months, will my right hon. Friend see that a decision is reached at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Eden: This man has gone into hospital, and is now being examined. I cannot say more.

    RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for War whether, as officers embodied in the Royal Army Reserve of

    1141
    Officers who have been for many years liable to recall and who, by virtue of that liability, have been recalled prior to the outbreak of war, are not allowed to have calculated any period of their Reserve service towards promotion and higher pay, he will propose some step to adjust this matter in favour of officers so affected?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The general principle governing the reckoning of service for time promotion and increments of pay is that only full pay service counts for these purposes. This excludes service in the Regular Army Reserve of Officers during which no duty is performed.
    Mr. Liddall: Am I to understand from that answer that trained officers who have been ready and willing to serve for over 20 years are to get no priority in their present employment?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir. What my hon. Friend is to understand is that it would not be fair to allow those who have not been actively serving but who have been on the Reserve of Officers to count for promotion in the same way as those who have been actively serving.

    DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Debbieasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement relative to an increase in allowances to soldiers' wives and dependants owing to the increasing difficulty of meeting their financial obligations?
    Mr. Eden: As I informed my hon. Friend on 2nd July, I have the position under review. I have no further statement to make at present.
    Mr. Dobbie: Is the Minister satisfied that the allowance made to a soldier and his wife is adequate to give them a decent standard of life?
    Mr. Eden: I have said that I have the position under review. I cannot go beyond that.
    Mr. Dobbie: Will the Minister be in a position to make a statement on the matter before Christmas? In view of the long delay and the many questions I have addressed to him on this subject, will he give us some idea when the matter will be dealt with?
    Mr. Eden: I have told the hon. Member that the matter is under review. I hope to be in a position to make a statement next week; but I do not want to give an undertaking, because there are many matters to be considered in relation to this subject.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to grant allowances to dependent children in a soldier's household who are not members of his family and not legally adopted?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. It has now been decided that, for the period of the war, claims may in future be made for an allowance in respect of any child who is being brought up in a soldier's household at the expense of the soldier, and who has been so brought up and maintained for a period of at least six months prior to the claim being made, provided that no payment towards the maintenance of the child is being received from any other source.
    Mr. Mathers: To what extent will these allowances apply retrospectively?
    Mr. Eden: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that steps are taken to make that decision known?
    Mr. Eden: I think that the matter, in view of the announcement to-day, will no doubt receive a wider publicity.
    Mr. Buchanan: The public do not know, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to give the matter greater publicity?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I am taking steps to see that the Forces themselves get to know about it.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Will those who have already applied for this allowance have to apply again, or will they get it as a result of their first application?
    Mr. Eden: They will have to put in an application now.
    Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of back dating?
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will continue to pay to the dependant of a member of the Armed Forces the voluntary allotment made to such dependant in the event of a member of the Forces being made a prisoner of war; and will such payment be continued to the end of the war?
    Mr. Eden: The answer is "Yes, Sir," unless the soldier himself cancels the authority.
    Captain Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the term that they are incarcerated in Germany as prisoners of war, other ranks are entitled only to this separation allowance, or are they being granted the same facilities which, I understand, are extended to officers, namely, the pay of their rank and merit allowances?
    Mr. Eden: This is a question that I dealt with fully the other day, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put his Question down.

    PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Silkinasked the Secretary of State for War why there is substantial delay in the case of men who become entitled to increased pay either by promotion or otherwise, in their obtaining the increase?
    Mr. Eden: Commanding officers can authorise the issue of increased pay to soldiers as soon as they become entitled to it. In the case of acting rank, however, increased pay is not admissible until the rank has been held for 21 days. It is then issuable with retrospective effect.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in many instances officers of long periods of active service in the present war are still without payment of allowances due to them on acting and temporary rank, respectively; what is the reason for this delay; and whether, to obviate the hardship, he will take steps to see that through command paymasters, bankers, or otherwise, payment is made forthwith in every case of arrears?
    Mr. Eden: In the case of officers, payments in respect of acting and temporary
    1144
    rank are authorised by paymasters and agents as soon as the promotions appear in the War Office or Command Orders. In view of events of the past few months, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the normal processes of recording and notifying promotions made by commanders have been inevitably delayed, but I am looking into the matter with a view to arranging that outstanding cases should be cleared up with the least possible delay.
    Mr. Liddall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are officers to whom arrears for their wives' extra allowances have been accumulating for eight or nine months? What steps are they to take, whom are they to approach, to get this pay?
    Mr. Eden: If my hon. Friend has cases of that kind, I shall be grateful if he will give me particulars. I know that there has been delay, for the reasons which I have given, and I am anxious that it should be cleared up.
    Mr. Liddall: If I give specific cases, as I can, with the officers' names, will my right hon. Friend see that they are not prejudiced as a result?
    Major Milner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present system is much less satisfactory and more troublesome than the simple system for the payment of officers in the last war? Will he look into the two systems?
    Mr. Eden: It is a very complicated subject. I do not accept that altogether.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an estimate of the cash values of the pay and emoluments of an unmarried private with no dependant's allowances, and of a married private receiving allowance for a wife and child; and also of the cash values of the various grades of commissioned officers under similar domestic circumstances, as given in the case of privates?
    Mr. Eden: As the statement is long and complicated, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    1145

    Pay and Allowances of Combatant Officers.

    Daily Rates.

    Rank.

    Pay.

    Accommodation and rations for officer himself.

    Family lodging allowance issuable in respect of family of a married officer with wife and one child.

    Totals.

    Unmarried officer.

    Married officer with wife and one child.

    Lodging allowance.

    Fuel and light allowance (average).

    Ration allowance.

    If officer is 30 years of age or over.

    If officer is under 30 years of age.

    Officer who is 30 years of age or over.

    Officer who is under 30 years of age.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Second-lieutenant

    …

    11

    0

    2

    6

    8

    2

    2

    6

    0

    4

    6

    16

    4

    22

    4

    20

    10

    Lieutenant

    …

    …

    13

    0

    2

    6

    8

    2

    2

    6

    0

    4

    6

    18

    4

    24

    4

    22

    10

    After 6 years' service

    After 6 years' service

    After 6 years' service

    After 6 years' service

    14

    6

    19

    10

    25

    10

    24

    4

    Captain

    …

    …

    …

    16

    6

    2

    6

    8

    2

    2

    7

    6

    4

    6

    21

    10

    29

    4

    26

    4

    After 11 years' service

    After 11 years' service

    After 11 years' service

    After 11 years' service

    19

    0

    24

    4

    31

    10

    28

    10

    After 14 years' service

    After 14 years' service

    After 14 years' service

    23

    6

    28

    10

    36

    4

    Not applicable

    Major

    …

    …

    …

    28

    6

    4

    0

    1

    5

    2

    2

    7

    6

    4

    6

    36

    1

    43

    7

    40

    7

    After 22 years' service

    After 22 years' service

    After 22 years' service

    33

    6

    41

    1

    48

    7

    Not applicable

    Lieut.-Colonel

    …

    …

    43

    0

    4

    6

    2

    6

    2

    2

    9

    1

    4

    6

    52

    2

    61

    3

    56

    8

    (average)

    (average)

    Notes.—As regards married officers, the above particulars relate to the case of a married officer who is separated from his family by reason of being on service, this being the position of the majority of married officers in present circumstances.

    Lodging, fuel and light and rations will usually be provided in kind for an officer, but the allowances shewn in the above table are those issuable when he is required to provide them himself.

    Pay and Allowances of a Private Soldier.

    Daily Rates.

    Rank.

    Pay.

    Accommodation and rations for soldier himself.

    Family Allowance for Wife and one child.

    Totals.

    Lodging Allowance.

    Fuel and Light Allowance (average).

    Ration Allowance.

    Unmarried Private.

    Married Private with wife and one child.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Private

    …

    From 2s. for a non-tradesman on first joining to 5s. 9d. for a skilled tradesman with more than three years' service.

    1

    3

    5

    2

    7

    3

    3…4 (with an additional 6d. if the family is residing in the London Postal Area).

    From 6s. 3d. to 10s.

    From 9s. 6.4d. to 13s. 3.4d. (with an additional 6d. if the family is residing in the London Postal Area).

    Notes.—Lodging, fuel and light and rations will usually be provided in kind for a soldier, but the allowances shown in the above table are those issuable when he is required to provide them himself.

    As regards married soldiers, the above particulars relate to the case of a soldier who is separated from his family by reason of his being on service, this being the position of the majority of soldiers in present circumstances.

    AUXILIARY MILITARY PIONEER CORPS.
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the title of the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps; and whether it is the intention to arm all ranks of this corps 100 per cent. for Defence purposes?
    Mr. Eden: While I have every sympathy with the representations made by my hon. and gallant Friend, a change of title would involve many consequential alterations in documents, badges and the like, and I do not think I should be justified in recommending it at the present time. It has now been decided to arm all the British members of the corps.

    CONVALESCENCE.
    Mr. John Morganasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to support a scheme for affording convalescent treatment, with adequate family allowances over the period, to all men discharged from the Army with a health breakdown following a short period of Army service, after having been initially passed by a medical board, so enabling many such men to become fit to resume the remunerative jobs they vacated on being called up?
    Mr. Eden: Provision is made for men who are discharged as medically unfit for further service in that each soldier so discharged is granted one month's furlough with pay and allowances. Normally, the man goes home as soon as it is decided to discharge him, and this provision enables him to have a month's rest if he so desires in which to adapt himself once more to civilian conditions. After the expiration of the month's furlough, if the disability is attributable to service during the war, the man will receive from the Ministry of Pensions any award of pension appropriate to his case, with family allowance if permissible.
    Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that the present system is not working satisfactorily, and that there is a large number of men who have not had sufficient convalescence to enable them to recover? Could he extend the system, with a view to bringing improvement?
    Mr. Eden: I was not aware of that, but I am quite prepared to look into the matter.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Are proper arrangements made to see that they do actually convalesce during that time?
    Mr. Eden: The man goes home. We do not control him there.

    ACTING RANK.
    Mr. J. Morganasked the Secretary of State for War what is the explanation of the order issued from Royal Engineer records requiring that all non-commissioned officers who have not held their rank for 90 days and who were evacuated from France, south of the Somme, shall revert to the rank held before the 90-day limit, seeing that many of the men affected have been on active service since the outbreak of the war and fully earned their promotion?
    Mr. Eden: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Under the ordinary rules for promotion in war, acting rank is only granted to personnel actually with their units and is held, apart from short absences of less than 21 days, only for so long as they are performing the duties for which such rank is granted, except that if they have held acting rank for three months it is automatically confirmed into war substantive rank. According to a strict interpretation of these rules, a soldier who became detached from his unit during the fighting and evacuation and who, in consequence, ceased to perform the duties for which such rank was given would automatically relinquish it after 20 days' absence. Instructions were issued, however, to protect the soldier from the operation of the normal rules and to allow him, even if he were separated from his unit during the evacuation, to retain his acting rank pending the reorganisation of units. Whether a soldier continued in his acting rank after the reorganisation had been completed would depend upon whether or not he was performing the duties of his acting rank.
    Mr. Morgan: Am I to understand from that answer that there may be men who were involved in the evacuation from France on the various occasions who have not been able to ascertain their full rights in this matter and that they are entitled to apply for them, and have been reduced in rank in consequence of their service overseas?
    Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend can understand that we have taken special steps to protect their acting rank in these exceptional circumstances.

    ENTRENCHING TOOL.
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War what type of entrenching tool it has been decided to introduce as an integral part of the soldier's equipment; where it will be carried; and when it is expected that the first issues will be made?
    Mr. Eden: The entrenching tool is in the form of a miniature shovel. It is carried in a webbing carrier, attached to the belt of the web equipment. First issues have already been made.

    LEAVE.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have been made for home leave for all British Expeditionary Force men who have returned to this country, and what is the nature of same; have free railway warrants been issued for such leave, and is it a special and not one of the regulation leaves; and how many leaves per annum with free warrants are granted to members of the Forces?
    Mr. Eden: Arrangements have been made to enable British Expeditionary Force personnel to spend 48 hours in their homes on special leave with a free travelling warrant, additional to the two free warrants a year otherwise admissible for travelling on leave. Almost all of those concerned have already had this special leave.
    Mr. Dobbie: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering extending the number of leaves per annum which may be given to Service soldiers?
    Mr. Eden: In present conditions, my hon. Friend will realise the difficulty of that.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Secretary of State for War why the applications of soldiers for leave on account of serious illness are frequently held up so long that death and, in some cases, burial has taken place before the soldier reaches his home?
    Mr. Eden: It is certainly my desire that such applications should not be held up beyond the minimum time necessary for investigation. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any cases that have come to his notice, I will have them investigated.
    Mr. Burke: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has had a number of cases of long delay from me, and will he see that, whether the delay is caused by muddle or pinpricking, the distress which soldiers naturally feel at these times is not increased by unnecessary delays caused by War Office red tape?
    Mr. Eden: I am very anxious that there should be no unnecessary delays, but quick verification is not always easy, as the hon. Member knows.

    NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPANIES.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent men who enlist in the National Defence Companies are employed in their own localities; whether he is aware that in certain instances older men of this corps, notwithstanding age and their lower medical categories, are on training and duties with young men recently joined for general service; and whether, in view of the object of original National Defence Companies enlistments, he can take steps to offer transfer to their own localities to these older men to serve together and thus replace younger general service men who are there stationed for defence purposes?
    Mr. Eden: Men who enlisted in National Defence Companies undertook, by the terms of their enlistment, to serve wherever called upon in the United Kingdom, but every effort is made to enable such men to serve near their own homes, so far as military requirements allow. The younger men are, as a rule, in separate companies. It would not be practicable to arrange any general system of transfer, but I shall be glad to consider any particular cases that are brought to my notice.
    Mr. Lyons: If I bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the cases of a number of men of low category and advancing age who have been taken to the North to work with young, general service men, will he look into the matter personally, without any disciplinary action being risked by these men?
    Mr. Eden: There is no question of disciplinary action, but I will gladly look into the matter.

    MAIL CENSORSHIP.
    Sir Robert Taskerasked the Secretary of State for War why letters written by soldiers in Ireland are opened by examiners, and are letters sent to soldiers in Ireland opened and examined?
    Mr. Eden: Letters written by soldiers in Ireland are subjected to examination in the interests of security. All mail between Great Britain and Ireland, including letters written to soldiers in Ireland, is subject to censorship.
    Sir R. Tasker: Are letters written by soldiers in England, Scotland and Wales opened and examined?
    Mr. Eden: There is a censorship overseas, but not within these islands.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Major Leightonasked the Secretary of State for War what is the position as regards pay and allowances of prisoners of war?
    Mr. Eden: Regulations regarding the issue of pay and allowances in respect of prisoners of war have been published in Army Order 71 of 1940, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

    SUSPICIOUS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether the Swinton Committee is attached to any special Government Department?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I have already told the House in answer to a Question last week by the hon. Member that it is not in the public interest to give information about this committee or other committees connected with Secret Service, counteracting Fifth Column activities and the like. I take full responsibility for the control, character and composition of the committee, which contains among others a prominent trade union leader.
    Mr. Strauss: Can the Prime Minister say how long the trade union leader has been a member of this Committee; whether this Committee is in any way responsible for the police searches which
    1154
    are going on in many parts of the country in homes of Labour and trade union officials, and does he approve of the prohibition—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must confine his Supplementary Questions to the subject of the Question on the Paper and the answer. I cannot allow all these Questions to be asked.
    Mr. Strauss: May I ask this Question, which, I submit, arises directly out of the answer given by the Prime Minister, who went into some detail? May I ask him whether he approves of the prohibition which has gone out that no newspaper may mention this Committee without special permission?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman persists in asking this Question. The Government have stated on their own responsibility that they do not think that it is in the public interest that this should be discussed.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is very considerable public uneasiness about this matter?

    GERMAN UNIVERSITY.
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Germans have thought it worth while to announce the establishment of a Breton university in Brittany, he will consider the desirability of establishing a German university in this country?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have plenty of other things to think about at the present time.
    Mr. Petherick: Instead of squandering money for the benefit of enemy aliens as the hon. Baronet suggested, will my right hon. Friend adhere to his decision to spend all the money available on bombs and other lethal weapons to destroy the enemy?
    The Prime Minister: That is covered by my original answer.
    Sir R. Acland: Would the right hon. Gentleman receive a statement on the case to show how very valuable such a step would be?

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct every Department of State concerned to describe such persons as may have established their right before a tribunal to the status of refugee from Nazi oppression, by that title, and not as enemy aliens?
    The Prime Minister: The expression "enemy alien" merely means a foreigner who is the subject of a State at war with His Majesty. It is fully recognised that many such persons are not hostile to this country and that in referring to them it is better to use such a phrase as "persons of enemy nationality," but it is not always possible to avoid the term "enemy alien" which is the legal description used in certain statutory enactments.
    Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we are to distinguish between our friendly enemies and our hostile friends?
    Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the classification of victims of Nazi oppression was notified on all passports as "Friendly Aliens"? Why not stick to a description which is very familiar, namely, "Victims of Nazi oppression"?

    INTERNEES (VISITS).
    Mr. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, as a result of a failure of co-ordination between the Home Office and the War Office, it is now virtually impossible for internees to receive visits, even from their lawyers on urgent business; and whether he will take steps to see that this unnecessary injustice is removed?
    Mr. Peake: I have been asked to reply. I am sorry if the hon. Member has experienced difficulty in obtaining information regarding, or permits to visit, internees. I understand that there has been a very large number of applications for permission to visit internees on business matters, and that the Prisoners of War Department of the War Office have been endeavouring to regulate the grant of permits in accordance with the relative urgency of the requests, and, in particular, to give priority to visits to internees who are going overseas.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman really answered this Question before I asked it. I wanted to raise the point of Order why this Question was being answered by someone other than the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that for the last eight days I, personally, have been sent from one Department to another and have found nether knowing which was responsible for this matter. For that reason I put the Question down to the Prime Minister because of the lack of co-ordination between two Departments.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for that.
    Mr. Silverman: May I ask a Supplementary Question, then, on the answer given? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of eight days' investigation, of the kind to which I have referred, I was told by a representative of the War Office that no permits were being given to allow internees to be seen by their legal advisers except in such cases as those under which powers of attorney had already been given or the internee was immediately proceeding overseas?
    Mr. Peake: Obviously, it is all important that internees should have an opportunity of consulting with their legal advisers. There has been a large number of applications to visit internees, and I understand that the rules laid down by the Prisoners of War Department have had to be modified on the lines of the answer I have already given. If I may explain about the lack of co-ordination referred to in the hon. Member's Question, it is, I think, partly due to the fact that the hon. Member approached the Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for War on a matter in which he is professionally concerned, and a civil servant, placed in a difficult position like that, does not know if an hon. Member is approaching him as a matter of public interest or in his professional capacity. The natural inclination of a civil servant when placed in a dilemma of that kind is to pass the responsibility on to somebody else.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week he personally explained to me that permits would be granted but were ultimately refused?
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. Would I be in order to give notice now that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question No. 49, I propose to take an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    JERSEY COPPER COINAGE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Jersey copper coinage is recognised as being valid currency in this country or not?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir. The copper coinage of Jersey is not legal tender in the United Kingdom.
    Sir T. Moore: May I ask how these refugees from Jersey are to live in this country, since they had only two hours to get away and no time in which to get any kind of money?
    Sir K. Wood: Exchange is made through the banks.

    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT FACILITIES.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since no concession has been made by the banks to the agricultural borrowers in their charges, which remain at 5 per cent. on money borrowed, he will consider a scheme for subsidising credits to approved borrowers in cases which were supported by recommendations from the county war agricultural committees on the grounds of the high interest charges preventing the maximum output being obtained from the farms?
    Sir K. Wood: For the reasons explained by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary in the course of the Adjournment Debate on 18th July, I do not think this course is necessary.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the lack of money and the high interest charge—5 per cent.—on borrowed money are impeding and holding back the national effort for food production more than anything else to-day? Why is it that he will not do anything?
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since agriculture is recognised to be an industry essential to the war effort, he will give some assurance that the banks would give preference in granting credits to such industries, as compared with non-essential industries; and also an assurance that no collateral security, such as stocks and shares would be required, but that the advances could be made on the standing crops and livestock alone?
    Sir K. Wood: The banks are already giving special consideration to requests for credit by industries which are essential to the war effort, including agriculture. Further, I am satisfied that the banks are not insisting on the provision of collateral security for advances to farmers where a farmer's general position, which, of course, includes standing crops and livestock, reasonably justifies the credit required.
    Mr. De la Bère: What is the use of all this great pretence and these wordy evasions? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that something must be done?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to ask Supplementaries like that.
    Mr. Stokes: Why should the railways have preferential terms over the farmers?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it that by these wordy evasions the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know the answer? What does he qualify for if he does not know the answer? [Interruption.] In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the whole matter on the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member cannot behave, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

    LAND ACQUISITION, ABBOTSINCH.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the seven plots of land at Abbotsinch, purchased from seven different owners, were regarded as revenue sales, and which as capital sales?
    Sir K. Wood: No information can be furnished as to whether a particular sale

    1159
    of land is a revenue sale that attracts liability to Income Tax, as the disclosure would involve a breach of the statutory rule that particulars of the Income Tax assessment are confidential.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware that a short time ago he told me that revenue sales would be subject to tax, and is it not right, in view of this particular transaction, that we should know which are revenue sales and which are capital sales? The view of many people is that all the money ought to be returned.
    Sir K. Wood: I explained the general principle so far as I could, namely, that these are matters concerning the liability of individual persons which I am not permitted to disclose.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Chancellor aware that I have a letter here from the Town Clerk of Paisley in connection with this ground, in which he asks the Government not to buy this land because it would be absolutely impossible to utilise it for the purpose they desire?

    PURCHASE TAX.
    Commander King-Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended that Government publications will be subject to the Purchase Tax?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the public indignation about the tax on newspapers?
    Commander King-Hall: Does the Chancellor realise that in this particular case the Government are the wholesalers and that a minimum number of Government publications must be printed, so that the only way to get back some of that cost is to sell additional copies to the public?
    Commander King-Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended that the Bible will be subject to the Purchase Tax?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Income Tax is payable on the profits of the sales of Bibles by commercial publishers and booksellers, and the liability of such books to the Purchase Tax would seem no less equitable as a contribution to the war effort.
    Commander King-Hall: Does the Chancellor not realise that this publication is in a special category, not only by reason of its content, but also because it can be published only under licence and, therefore, has statutory recognition of its special character?
    Sir K. Wood: That may very well be so, but I suggest that a tax on the Bible in these circumstances is a contribution to the national war effort.
    Mr. Thorne: Does it not amount to a tax on Christianity?

    TOBACCO AND CIGARETTES (ARMED FORCES).
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that although the men in the Navy are entitled to duty-free tobacco and cigarettes, the men in the Army and Air Force have no such concession; whether he will take steps to provide the same benefits to all men serving in the Forces, or alternatively, in view of the increased cost of tobacco and postage, consider increasing the pay of the men by 6d. a day?
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he appreciates that the Budget proposals will still further depreciate the real value of service pay and allowances and will involve increased hardship on the men and their dependants; and whether he will take action either to increase the soldiers' pay or to secure financial relief or rebate in respect of postage, tobacco and refreshment, travelling expenses or other expenditure?
    Sir K. Wood: As I stated in my Budget speech, the increased taxation which is necessary must fall on all sections of the community if, as we must, we are to continue to make our greatest effort. With regard to the particular case of tobacco, however, hon. Members will have noted the statement made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary in the Debate on the Budget Resolutions on Thursday last, to the effect that the views of the Service Ministers on the matter are being obtained in the light of the increase proposed in the Budget.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the lower-paid men in the Forces are being heavily

    1161
    burdened by these increased charges, and will he give an assurance that the inquiry to which he has referred will be expedited; and will he advise me shortly when to put down another Question on the subject?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I will do that. The inquiry is now proceeding.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of discontent in the Services because of the increased burdens placed upon the soldiers' incomes when so many of them find it difficult to meet their ordinary commitments?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but burdens have to be borne by others as well.
    Mr. Denville: Cannot the Government afford a miserable sixpence in a case like this?

    TRAVEL FACILITIES (ARMED FORCES).
    Mr. J. Hendersonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether further consideration will be given to the desirability of providing cheaper railway travelling facilities to members of the Armed Forces on all occasions on which they travel home on leave?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir. Members of His Majesty's Forces are granted two free railway warrants per annum, and on other occasions may obtain a single ticket at half ordinary single fare or a return ticket at ordinary single fare.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these railway charges are a very serious burden, particularly on soldiers who have only 7s. a week, and that this is typified by a case given to me yesterday of a man in Carlisle who had to pay £2 4s. 7d. for seven days' leave, the price of the fare from Aldershot to Carlisle, and will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do something in the matter as far as the lower-paid soldiers are concerned?
    Captain Crookshank: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that two free railway warrants per annum are granted, and cheaper rates at other times.
    Mr. Lyons: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the ticket that
    1162
    is sold to soldiers at one half of the ordinary fare is one half of the old fare and not one half of the present return fare, and, therefore, soldiers getting that concession do not get the concession which many people think they ought to get and which my right hon. and gallant Friend suggests, and will he make some representations to the railway companies accordingly?

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DICTAPHONES).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that typing staff can be reduced by nearly 50 per cent. and shorthand staff often eliminated altogether by the use of dictaphones; and whether, in view of the fact that only 317 dictating machines are now in use in all Government Departments, he will give instructions that their use is to become more widespread?
    Sir K. Wood: Whilst I cannot accept all the implications of my hon. Friend's Question, as I have already informed him, a number of these machines are already in use in Government Departments and further will be made available when either economy or efficiency can be expected to result.
    Mr. Stokes: Is not the Chancellor aware that this form of machinery was invented a long time ago, and is he satisfied with the progress being made, seeing that it is considered sufficient for only 317 machines to be in operation in all Government Departments?
    Sir K. Wood: We introduce them whenever we consider it necessary.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the machinery being altered in order that local advice and opinion can be taken on any such question in the future?

    EXIT PERMITS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether any restriction was placed on Mr. Davis, pianist to Miss Gracie Fields, when he left this country recently, affecting the amount of money to be taken out; and if so, the amount allowed;

    1163
    (2) whether any restriction was placed on Miss Gracie Fields when she left this country recently, affecting the amount of money and the value of jewellery to be taken out; and if so, the amount and value allowed, respectively?
    Captain Crookshank: My inquiries are not yet completed. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his Questions on Thursday.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the scope of these inquiries extend to ascertaining how much of these people's resources has been left in this country?
    Captain Crookshank: They will be directed to answering whatever is the Question on the Order Paper.
    Dr. H. Morgan: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that this personal baiting of a fine artiste is quite petty and unworthy of the traditions of this House?
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, acting in conjunction with other hon. Members, I was given certain information and considered it my duty to raise this as a question of great public interest, in order to prove either one way or the other that no preferences are being shown to people in any part of the country?

    NEUTRAL SHIPPING (GOVERNMENT MEASURES).
    Mr. Shinwell(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Shipping what steps he proposes to take to prevent neutral shipping resources being used by the enemy?
    The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): The course of the war has made necessary new measures for the control of shipping. A large volume of shipping is already under British and Allied control, and this includes a substantial tonnage of neutral shipping on British time charter. While His Majesty's Government remain prepared to take further tonnage upon charter, they propose other measures to ensure that so far as possible shipping which is not controlled by the Allies will not find employment in trades which would in any way benefit the enemy.
    1164
    Hitherto, the widespread and important shipping facilities under British control have been freely available to all vessels. Such facilities include the provision of bunkers, dry-docking and repairing, insurance, stores and many minor services. It is not reasonable that these facilities should continue to be freely available to shipowners who do not render commensurate service in return, or to those who fail to satisfy His Majesty's Government that they will refrain from carrying on trade which would be injurious to the Allied war effort. The possession of a ship's navicert for every voyage to which the navicert system applies will be essential. Neutral owners who have not already entered into satisfactory arrangements on these lines are invited to do so, and to supply His Majesty's Government with such particulars as may be necessary to establish the character of the trade on which their ships are engaged. Those who give acceptable undertakings will receive for each of their ships a pass called a ship's warrant which will assure them of continued access to the available commercial shipping facilities under British control. Ships which are unable to produce a ship's warrant will be subject to separate inquiries on each occasion on which they desire facilities under British control. This must at least mean delay and inconvenience. I hope that all shipowners affected will lose no time in signing the necessary undertaking themselves or instructing their London representatives to do so.
    The scheme comes into operation forthwith. Shipowners or their representatives desirous of participating in the scheme can obtain information as to the undertaking required and as to the scheme generally by application to the Ministry of Shipping.
    Mr. Shinwell: Bearing on the question of the use of neutral shipping resources, will the Minister give his attention to the subversive activities now being employed in the United States and other countries as regards neutral seamen? Is he aware that many neutral seamen are now being subverted from their allegiance to this country?
    Mr. Cross: That matter has already had my attention for some weeks past, and I am doing everything possible to deal with the situation.
    Mr. Lipson: What is to prevent one of these warrants passing into the hands of the enemy?
    Mr. Cross: The warrants relate to each individual ship, and they are, therefore, of no use to the enemy.
    Mr. Lipson: What would be the position if the enemy captured a ship and obtained its warrant?
    Mr. Cross: We should probably catch the enemy out.

    DETENTION OF A MEMBER (COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES).
    Captain Shaw(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the Motion standing on the Order Paper relating to the detention of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay), and whether the Government will refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges?
    [That this House is of opinion that the circumstances of the detention of the honourable and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern should be referred to the Committee of Privileges for their examination and report.]
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government are prepared to move to refer the question of the arrest and detention of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern, to the Committee of Privileges for examination in relation to the Privileges of this House. The necessary Motion will be tabled tomorrow.
    Mr. Thurtle: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that, apart from any breach of the Privileges of this House, the hon. and gallant Member will not be treated, in relation to the law, any differently from any other citizen?
    The Prime Minister: The Committee of Privileges will deal only with the question of Privilege.
    Mr. Garro Jones: While not attributing any bias to those members of the Government who sit on the Committee of Privileges, is the Prime Minister aware that the Committee is constituted of a proportionate number of members not members of the Government? Therefore, will it be proposed to amend the constitution of that Committee in any respect?
    The Prime Minister: I see no warrant in the situation for the House not to
    1166
    repose its confidence in the fair dealing of its Committee of Privileges.
    Mr. Mathers: May I ask whether the consideration which is given to this matter will take into account the position of the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member and the fact that at present it is disfranchised?
    The Prime Minister: This Question deals only with Privilege.
    Mr. Denman: Does the answer imply that the report of the Advisory Committee will not be put before the Committee of Privileges?
    The Prime Minister: I think we must see how the Committee of Privileges addresses itself to the task.
    Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Prime Minister take into account the fact that many constituencies are disfranchised, not because their representatives have been engaged in subversive activities, but because their Members are engaged in active service for the country?
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Committee of Privileges in the examination of this case have the right to the full evidence which is in the hands of the Home Office?
    The Prime Minister: The Committee must conduct its own affairs and be responsible to the House for discharging its duties thoroughly. I cannot see any reason why confidential matters affecting public interests should not be laid before the Committee for the purpose of enabling them to form their own opinion.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Committee have the right to send for persons and papers in the execution of their office?

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Abertay to attend to be examined, as a Witness, before the Navy Services Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure.—[Sir P. Harris.]

SECRET SESSION.
3.58 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): A week ago the Government were led to believe that there was a desire in the House to have a Debate about foreign affairs, and that it was the wish of the House for it to take place in secret, so that Members of all parties could say what they really felt about foreign countries without any danger of adding to the number of those countries with which we are at present at war. It is always the desire and also the duty of the Government, so far as possible, to meet the wishes of the House, and arrangements were accordingly made for this afternoon. However, it appears that some of the newspapers prefer that the Debate should take place in public, and we are assured that secrecy is undemocratic, especially in times of war, that it would be wrong for Members of Parliament to have privileges in matters of information not enjoyed by the whole mass of the nation, and that the Government should take the nation and the enemy fully into their confidence and let the whole world see plainly exactly how and where they stand in relation to all other countries in the present critical juncture. These arguments, or others like them, seem to have made an impression in various quarters of the House, and the Government are now in the embarrassing position of a servant receiving contradictory orders from those whom their only desire is to serve. We therefore have found means to give the House an opportunity of expressing by Debate and Division, the opinion whether the Debate should be secret or public. Also we have arranged that this preliminary Debate can itself take place under conditions of the fullest publicity. I conclude by moving,
"That the remainder of this day's Sitting be a Secret Session and that strangers be ordered to withdraw."
This is a debatable Motion. The Government will not attempt to influence the opinion of the House on the issue. Unless provoked, we shall take no part in the discussion, and Ministers will take no part in the Division, which will be left to the free vote of the House. After that matter has been decided, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will, at any point in the
1194
Debate that may be convenient, make his statement, either in public or in private, as the House may have decided. He has already, I believe, taken the precaution of preparing two speeches, both, I am sure, excellent, but one somewhat longer than the other.
Earl Winterton Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing) rose—
Hon. Members: Divide.
4.2 p.m.
Earl Winterton: My hostility to this Motion has already been almost disarmed by the most witty and eloquent speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but despite the cries of "Divide," which proceed from some of my hon. Friends, I do suggest to the House that a question of some constitutional importance is involved in this issue between secret and open Sessions, and I do not think it is a question which can be disposed of without some form of Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "For how long?"] That depends upon the character of the Debate and how many people wish to express their opinions on one side or the other. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear by his speech that in its genesis this proposal for a Secret Session did not proceed from the Government. Indeed, the Lord Privy Seal in his answers to Questions last week explained that it was not the Government's desire to express any opinion upon the subject, but, he said, there had been expressed in various quarters of the House what he regarded as a majority opinion in favour of a Secret Session. I submit with great respect to the House, whose Members, or at any rate the majority of its Members, I wish to convince, and none of whom I wish to offend, that this is, as I have said, a matter of great importance and that it should be quite clear, if the Debate is to be held in secret, that there is a majority in favour of holding it in secret.
May I, in the first instance, on the general principle of Secret Sessions, recall to the memory of the House this fact? In the whole of the last war, from 1914 to 1918, when the circumstances on many occasions—as, for example, in March, 1918, or earlier—were just as serious as they are to-day, only seven Secret Sessions were held, whereas in this Parliament we have already held five, and if

1195
there is one to-day, it will be the sixth. However unpopular this view may be in the House, I feel bound to give voice to it, because it is certainly held outside, that Secret Sessions are a drag on the formation of public opinion. If the whole House were against me on that point, I should still make that statement, because it seems to me self-evident that the Press and the public properly base their opinion directly on the arguments adduced and the facts disclosed in Debate in this House. Therefore, it is unfair to the Press and the public to hold Secret Sessions save in exceptional circumstances. I would also like to say, if it is not impertinent, that both those bodies—if I may so term them—namely, public opinion and the Press, have, on the whole, behaved exceptionally well in this war. There has been no division of opinion between the public outside and the Press outside and this House, on any question of principle, and I think we owe it to the Press and the public to say so.
I am now about to say something which may provoke interruption, but which, nevertheless, I believe to be true. This House is not a sort of Sanhedrin or a collection of notables. It derives its authority from, and owes its authority to, the representation of the people. In those circumstances, I maintain, on the question of principle, that Secret Sessions can be justified only in the most exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances clearly arise on occasions when, for example, we are discussing questions of defence. Obviously there are occasions when defence should be discussed in private. For example, if it were found necessary in the course of the war to remove two or three high officers from positions in the Army or the Navy and if it would, obviously, be impracticable and impolitic to discuss the matter in public, then there should be a Secret Session. I see quite clearly, as an old Member of the House, that I have not the House on my side in this matter, but I say clearly, and I shall continue to assert with the greatest confidence, that Secret Sessions should be very much the exception rather than the rule, and I claim that public opinion outside and nearly all the Press hold that view very strongly.
1196
Some hon. Members asked how long this Debate would last, and I wish to set an example by being as succinct as possible, but I would ask the House to consider for a moment what are the circumstances which justify a Secret Session in the opinion of this mysterious majority—and I am not seeking to controvert what was said by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal—which is supposed to exist in the House and was, no doubt, represented by those who shouted "Divide" when I rose to speak. What are the reasons which in their opinion would justify us in holding this particular Debate in secret? Surely this is not the time and not the occasion for giving even the suggestion of secret diplomacy. At one time we were told by opponents of the late Government and by others that one of the things which was doing this country harm, was secret diplomacy. Such a charge would be ridiculous if brought against us to-day, and yet it is bound to be brought against us, if we discuss foreign affairs in secret.
There is another matter which is, I think, of some importance, though my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his most charming speech indicated, if I may say so without impertinence, that the whole question was not of great moment. I should have thought there is a real danger at the present time, with the fantastic and wicked lies and propaganda which are being used on the part of certain enemy countries, that it would be suggested, particularly after what happened a fortnight ago—ridiculous as that suggestion would be—that we intended in some mysterious way to discuss in our Secret Session what the peace terms to Hitler would be. If any hon. Member is prepared to deny that, and to say that there is no chance that Dr. Goebbels would do any such thing; if any hon. Member is prepared to say that he knows Dr. Goebbels better than I do, and that Dr. Goebbels would never make such a suggestion, let him get up and say so.
I do not wish to anticipate the course of the subsequent Debate. It would be very wrong, on this Motion, to do so. But I do suggest—in fact, it is well known—that the two main reasons which have actuated the majority who are said to have asked for this Secret Session, are that they wish to discuss our diplomatic

1197
and political relationships with two great countries, one of them in Europe and the other in Asia, and they think, because that relationship is difficult and delicate, at the present time, it would, therefore, be better to discuss it in secret. I ask the House, in all honesty, is that really so? Are we likely to have better relationships with these countries as a result of discussing those relationships in private? I have heard certain arguments used which, frankly, seemed to me to be ridiculous, to the effect that hon. Members might like to put certain views or to ask certain questions which they were not prepared to do in public Debate. If that is so, I suggest that the proper way to put those questions is by a private letter to the Minister. I think it inappropriate and wrong that questions should be put in private on matters of high policy which cannot be put in public. I hope there will be some reply to my arguments. I have not attempted to collect any body of supporters around me. On this matter I am open to conviction, and I am willing to be convinced, if it is shown that I am wrong, but I think even those who disagree with me will regard some of the points which I have put as substantial points, which ought to be considered by a deliberative and representative Assembly.
I would finish with an admonition and a declaration. I believe this House stands very high in public estimation at the present time. I think its enemies, who have always existed, sometimes in frivolous circles outside, have been silent of late. The House certainly stands higher than it did, for example, in the 'eighties when there were constant disorders over the Irish question, and higher even than it did in the days which the Prime Minister and some other hon. Members will recall, immediately before the last war, when we were often on the verge of fisticuffs. I think this House has never commanded higher respect than it does at the present time. If that be so, what justification is there for holding six Secret Sessions in less than a year when, during the whole of the last war, we held only seven?
Mr. Thorne: One hon. Member might throw a book at another hon. Member.
Earl Winterton: I hope my hon. Friend does not suggest that I ever threw a book
1198
at anybody, though I am sometimes, wrongly, associated with that incident. We should be extremely careful on this or any other occasion before embarking lightly upon Secret Sessions. At least reasons for such sittings should be given. In this time, when the lights of freedom are extinguished all over Europe, and when, for obvious reasons, they are dimmed in this country, we should guard its stronghold and its refuge in this House. We in this place are free, proud men and women looking all the world in the face. Let them know how we feel and think and talk. Let them know that our danger may be great, but our determination is greater. There is nothing in the matter of our relationships with foreign Powers which we need be ashamed to say, publicly, in this place.
4.14 p.m.
Sir Percy Harris: I never become agitated about ordinary questions of procedure, but I think it is agreed that the principle of the publicity of our proceedings in the House of Commons is important. The public at present take an intense interest in Parliament—not only the public of this country, but the public throughout the Empire. On the other hand, those who sit on these benches have, as a party, from time to time suggested that Sessions should be held in secret. In the early days of the war we pressed the Government for these Secret Sessions, sometimes without success. We attached then and we still attach great importance to those discussions, in which questions of defence are at issue, being conducted in private. It is obviously impossible for the Government to disclose all the facts to the public. On the other hand, my hon. Friends and I feel that there is no real case against having a full, frank and free discussion on international affairs. If the Prime Minister suggests that there is information which cannot be made public, he should give the House of Commons an opportunity for which there was a precedent during the last war; that is, to hold the first half of our discussions in public up to, say 7 o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Divide."] Then Members who wish to speak in public can have their opportunity and those who have information of a secret or confidential character will be able to disclose it in the

1199
latter part of the Debate. I understand from the Prime Minister that the Under-Secretary has two speeches. Let him give one speech in public and the more secret and confidential one later in the Debate.
4.16 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood: I do not think this is in the least an easy question to decide by an early Division. There were centuries during which this House considered that its Debates and its Votes ought to be secret. It took nearly a century of agitation before the House discovered that in its own interest its words ought to be published and public, that criticism of the Government was valuable; and even Governments finally supported that view. Today we are reverting over a great part of the world to the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and in exactly the same way this House is trying to revert to type by keeping its discussions secret and to have a certain private privilege over the people in the country—[An HON. MEMBER:"No."]—It is a privilege to have information given to you which other people do not possess. One of the greatest privileges we enjoy in this House is free access to the Executive.
Mr. Magnay: Is there any reason why this House should not exercise the functions of any ordinary town council and go into committee on things that matter?
Mr. Wedgwood: We are not a town council.
Hon. Members: Divide!
Mr. Wedgwood: I am quite prepared to stop here for a great many hours.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will address me.
Mr. Wedgwood: This is not a matter which we can pass over in the light way in which it was dealt in the Prime Minister's speech. Directly I heard the Prime Minister make that speech I knew there would be no hope of getting freedom of Debate to-day. It is because of my fervent hope that I may convert the Prime Minister for future occasions that I address a few words to the House to-day. It is most important that Debates in this
1200
House should not be private committee Debates, but that they should be open Debates. It has been said over and over again, particularly by my hon. Friends on this side, that it is important that we should be able to cross-examine Ministers privately and get information from them.
It has often been advocated on these benches that we should have what the French call the committee system, under which there is a committee dealing with, say, foreign affairs which has free but private discussions with Ministers on matters concerning their Departments. That system has great advantages, and it introduces a large number of people to the Executive. We have got round it in this House. Over and over again Members on both sides, in the 1922 Committee or in Labour party meetings, have been addressed in private by Ministers from whom they have got information which is not made public. They are also able at these meetings to give Ministers their strongly held opinions which it would not be desirable to make in public. That course can easily be worked under our present procedure. All we ask is that the Government must not take advantage of their vast majority to prevent public expression of criticism in this House any more than they can do it in the Press. The Press has been the principal critic of the Government for the last few months—not a hostile critic, but a critic to stimulate their energy. It would be unfortunate if we gave an opportunity to people outside to say that the House of Commons had abrogated its duty of public criticism in favour of the newspapers.
Why was this Debate asked for? It was because some of us were afraid of the policy of appeasement which was so disastrous at Munich being extended to the appeasement of Japan or of Spain or of Rumania. Is there any reason why that could not be said by us in public as by the Press? The whole House and country are vitally interested in whether there has been a change in policy in the Foreign Office of this country, and it is urgently necessary that we should express our anxiety lest this extension of the policy of appeasement, long after we had hoped it had ceased to be, should be carried on by the Foreign Office with their tendency to avoid criticism, to carry through their measures, and then to wash

1201
their hands of the consequences. In the last war the whole criticism from what is called the Union of Democratic Control and from all the Left Wing, was against secret diplomacy. Here we are forgetting that and once more contributing to secret diplomacy. It is all very well to say that in Secret Session we can impress the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Mr. George Griffiths: We cannot do that in any circumstances.
Mr. Wedgwood: We hope he agrees with us already. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is not present. The whole object of public Debate is to back up by criticism in this House the criticism expressed in the country, and, above all, to direct that criticism to the people who are criticised. The people we want to criticise are the permanent officials, of course, through the proper political channels. In open Debate the permanent officials are present under the gallery, and they know what is going on; the OFFICIAL REPORT and the Press report it, but when the criticism is made in Secret Session the permanent officials are not there, the country and the Press are not present. There is only the unfortunate Under-Secretary, who cannot possibly remember all that is said in Debate and is not able to look to his permanent officials for anything, and the Debate is wasted. It has no effect whatever on the people who are actually conducting the affairs of the nation.
The first objection to a Secret Session is that it gives the public the erroneous impression that something tremendously secret has been divulged. Everybody who has been at any Secret Session knows that every one of them might just as well have been in open Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should be glad to
hear in the subsequent Debate anything which has been said by anybody in Secret Session that could not have been divulged in open Session. The next objection is that the Debate can have no effect upon the people we most wish to affect, namely, the Civil Service and the military heads of the different Service Departments. Then, the holding of a Secret Session impresses the country as a sign of weakness—the fact that we are forced to debate a thing in secret. The country is suspicious, and is bound to be suspicious, not so much about what individual Members are doing, but about what the Government are doing, if the subject of debate has to be discussed in secret. Then there is the far worse effect it has upon Goebbels and Goering. Everything that is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT Goebbels will—
Hon. Members: Divide.
Mr. Naylor: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that if this discussion as to whether or not there should be a secret or an open Session continues much longer there will be no Session at all?
Mr. Wedgwood: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may exercise his own powers but must not usurp mine.
Sir William Davison: In order that we may have a decision on this matter without further irrelevancy, I beg to say that I spy strangers.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."
The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 109.

Division No. 64.]

AYES.

[4.33 p.m.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Brass, Sir W.

Colman, N. C. D.

Adamson, W. M.

Broad, F. A.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Culverwell, C. T.

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dver)

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Daggar, G.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Barnes, A. J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)

Da la Bère, R.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Burke, W. A.

Denville, Alfred

Beaumont, H. (Batley)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Dobbie, W.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Butcher, H. W.

Doland, G. F.

Beechman, N. A.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Benson, G.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Bird, Sir R. B.

Charleton, H. C.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilfy)

Blair, Sir R.

Chater, D.

Ellis, Sir G.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

Cluse, W. S.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Liddall, W. S.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Etherton, Ralph

Loftus, P. C.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)

Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Lyons, A. M.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

McCallum, Major D.

Salmon, Sir I.

Frankel, D.

Maclay, Hon. John S. (Montrose)

Salt, E. W.

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

M'Connell, Sir J.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Magnay, T.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Gardner, B. W.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Selley, H. R.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Marsden, Captain A.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Gates, E. E.

Martin, J. H.

Silkin, L.

Gibbins, J.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Simmonds, O. E.

Gibson, R. (Greerock)

Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

Smiles, Sir W. D.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Milner, Major J.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly>

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Molson, A. H. E.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)

Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hammersley, S. S.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h>

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Mort, D. L.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Harland, H. P.

Muff, G.

Tate, Mavis C.

Haslam, Henry

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hayday, A.

Nunn, W.

Thorne, W.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Thurtle, E.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Parker, J.

Touche, G. C.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Pearson, A.

Train, Sir J

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Peat, C. U.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Perkins. W. R. D.

Turton, R. H.

Hogg, Hon. Q. MoG.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Walkden, A. G.

Hollins, A. (Hanley)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Walker, J.

Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Pilkington, R.

Watkins, F. C.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Ponsenby, Col. C. E.

Wayland, Sir W. A

Isaacs, G. A.

Power, Sir J. C.

Webbe, Sir W. Harold

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Welsh, J. C.

Joel, D. J. B.

Profumo, J. D.

White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

John, W.

Pym, L. R.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Radford, E. A.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Kimball, L.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Woolley, W. E.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Lathan, G.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Lawson, J. J.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Loe, F.

Riley, B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Leigh, Sir J.

Ritson, J.

Sir William Davison and Sir J.

Leslie, J. R.

Robertson, D.

Wardlaw-Milne.

NOES.

Acland, Sir R. T. D.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Albery, Sir Irving

Gledhill, G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Mander, G. le M.

Banfield, J. W.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Mathers, G.

Barr, J.

Granville, E. L.

Maxton, J.

Bartlett, C. V. O.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Messer, F.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Groves, T. E.

Morgan, H. B. W. (Rochdale)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Bellenger, Capt. F. J.

Hambro, A. V.

Naylor, T. E.

Bossom, A. C.

Hannah, I. C.

Oliver, G. H.

Bromfield, W.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Owen, Major G.

Buchanan, G.

Harvey, T. E.

Price, M. P.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir C. M.

Pritt, D. N.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Hicks, E. G.

Purbrick, R.

Cary, R. A.

Holmes, J. S.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Cazalet, Major V. A. (Chippenham)

Horabin, T. L.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.>

Christie, J. A.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Cocks, F. S.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Rowlands, G.

Collindridge, F.

Jackson, W. F.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Keeling, E. H.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Cove, W. G.

Key, C. W.

Silverman, S. S.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Kirkwood, D.

Sloan, A.

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Levy, T.

Smithers, Sir W.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Lewis, O.

Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lindsay, K. M.

Sorensen, R. W.

De Chair, S. S.

Lipson, D. L.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Little, Sir E. Graham.

Spens, W. P.

Gallacher, W.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Stephen, C.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

Lunn, W.

Stokes. R. R.

1204

1205

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Viant, S. P.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Sulcliffe, H.

Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Sykes, Sir F. H.

Wells, Sir Sydney

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Weston, W. G.

Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Aneurin Bevan.

Tinker, J. J.

White, H. Graham

Tomlinson, G.

Mr. Speaker: Strangers must withdraw.
Strangers withdrew accordingly.
The following record of the subsequent proceedings is taken front the Votes and Proceedings:
Question again proposed, "That the remainder of this day's Sitting be a Secret Session, and that strangers be ordered to withdraw."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes before Ten o'Clock.

Resolved, "That the remainder of this day's Sitting be a Secret Session."—[The Prime Minister.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed to a Commitee of the whole House for To-morrow.
ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
  INDUSTRIAL ART AND DESIGN.
  INDUSTRIAL ART AND DESIGN.
  PRICES OF GOODS ACT.
  PRICES OF GOODS ACT.
SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  DEER FORESTS
  DEER FORESTS
  LAND (CULTIVATION).
  LAND (CULTIVATION).
  DEER CONTROL OFFICER.
  DEER CONTROL OFFICER.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINES DEPARTMENT (LORD HYNDLEY).
  MINES DEPARTMENT (LORD HYNDLEY).
  MINISTRY OE INFORMATION (WELSH REGIONAL OFFICE).
  MINISTRY OE INFORMATION (WELSH REGIONAL OFFICE).
  MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATION.
  MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATION.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (ARMED FORCES).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (ARMED FORCES).
  MINISTERS (PROPAGANDA).
  MINISTERS (PROPAGANDA).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SHARING ORDERS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SHARING ORDERS).
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (ALUMINIUM).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (ALUMINIUM).
  SPARE-TIME LABOUR.
  SPARE-TIME LABOUR.
  MUNITION WORKERS (ENTERTAINMENT).
  MUNITION WORKERS (ENTERTAINMENT).
  WAR TROPHIES.
  WAR TROPHIES.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  SAVINGS BANKS (DEPOSITS).
  SAVINGS BANKS (DEPOSITS).
  SUBSIDIES (COST OF LIVING).
  SUBSIDIES (COST OF LIVING).
  LICENCE DUTY (DEFENCE AREAS).
  LICENCE DUTY (DEFENCE AREAS).
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (LISTS).
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (LISTS).
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  INTERNEES.
  INTERNEES.
  BIRMINGHAM ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT (EMPLOYÉ).
  BIRMINGHAM ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT (EMPLOYÉ).
  UNOCCUPIED HOUSES, LONDON (FIRE RISKS).
  UNOCCUPIED HOUSES, LONDON (FIRE RISKS).
  ALLIED FORCES (IDENTIFICATION).
  ALLIED FORCES (IDENTIFICATION).
  RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS.
  RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS.
  PERSONAL BRAVERY AWARDS.
  PERSONAL BRAVERY AWARDS.
  EVACUATION.
  EVACUATION.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EXIT PERMITS.
  EXIT PERMITS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY FORCE (AGE LIMIT).
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY FORCE (AGE LIMIT).
  LAND ACQUISITION, IPSWICH.
  LAND ACQUISITION, IPSWICH.
  FRENCH SHIP "MEKNES" (ENEMY SINKING).
  FRENCH SHIP "MEKNES" (ENEMY SINKING).
AGRICULTURE.
  UNDER-CULTIVATED LAND.
  UNDER-CULTIVATED LAND.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  FRENCH GOVERNMENT.
  FRENCH GOVERNMENT.
  ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTER- NATIONAL AFFAIRS.
  ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTER- NATIONAL AFFAIRS.
  ALIEN STUDENTS.
  ALIEN STUDENTS.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS, LONDON.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS, LONDON.
  EVACUEES (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
  EVACUEES (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
ARMED FORCES.
  DOCTORS.
  DOCTORS.
  ENTERTAINMENTS.
  ENTERTAINMENTS.
  LAND PURCHASE LOAN, HARROW.
  LAND PURCHASE LOAN, HARROW.
BRITISH ARMY.
  PIONEER CORPS.
  PIONEER CORPS.
  LEAVE APPLICATION.
  LEAVE APPLICATION.
  BOOT REPAIRS
  BOOT REPAIRS
  HOME GUARD.
  HOME GUARD.
  ACCOMMODATION.
  ACCOMMODATION.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (RAILWAY WORKSHOPS COMPANY).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (RAILWAY WORKSHOPS COMPANY).
  RATION ALLOWANCE.
  RATION ALLOWANCE.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
  VISORS.
  VISORS.
  CURFEW ORDER (COMPENSATION).
  CURFEW ORDER (COMPENSATION).
  TEA RATIONING (ANNOUNCE- MENT).
  TEA RATIONING (ANNOUNCE- MENT).
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ARREST OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN JAPAN.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make any statement about the arrest of British subjects in Japan?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware from the reports in the Press, eleven prominent British subjects were detained by the Japanese gendarmerie on July 27; and with your Lordships' permission I will circulate the names of the eleven persons in the OFFICIAL REPORT. His Majesty's Ambassador has subsequently reported that two others are also believed to have been detained. On July 29 the Ministries of War and Justice in Tokyo made a. joint announcement to the effect that:
"In view of the ever-increasing activities of foreign organs of espionage and conspiracy in this country of late, the military police, under the direction of prosecutors, arrested, as a first step on July 27, those constituting part of a British espionage network covering the entire country."
2
It is hardly necessary for me to state that there is no foundation whatsoever for this allegation by the Japanese Government.
A further joint announcement by the Japanese Ministries of War and Justice stated that Mr. Melville James Cox, Reuter's correspondent at Tokyo, was arrested on a charge of espionage and threw himself from a third-storey room of the Tokyo military police headquarters on July 29 and died at 3.46 p.m. The announcement states that in the light of a note addressed to his wife, which was discovered on his person—I quote—
"it seems that with the progress of the investigation, the deceased became aware of the fact that he could not escape conviction."
His Majesty's Government are entirely unable to accept this totally unwarranted assumption of guilt. Strong representations have already been made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs. I myself asked the Japanese Ambassador to call upon me this morning, when I left His Excellency in no doubt as to the serious view which His Majesty's Government took of these arrests. I would prefer to say no more at the present stage.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that statement. I am sure we should all wish that His Majesty's Government should continue to take a firm line in this matter. We have a lively recollection of the satisfaction they ultimately obtained in the case where a number of British subjects were arrested in Russia on a similar sort of charge.
The names of British subjects referred to by Lord Halifax are as follows:
Mr. Melville James Cox, Reuter's correspondent in Tokyo.
Captain James, R.N. (retired), representative of the Federation of British Industries in Tokyo.
Mr. L. T. Woolley, of the Rising Sun Petroleum Company, Yokohama.
Mr. R. Holder, of Messrs. Brunner, Mond & Co., Kobe, and President of the Kobe branch of the British Association of Japan.
Mr. E. W. James, Manager of Cameron & Co., Kobe, and President of the Kobe and Osaka Foreign Chamber of Commerce, and Honorary Consul for Sweden.
Mr. F. M. Jonas, of Messrs. Nickel & Lyons, Kobe.
Mr. J. P. T. Drummond, of Frazar & Co., Osaka.
Mr. H. M. McNaughton, British merchant and Honorary Consul for Greece.
Mr. J. F. James, of Messrs. Nickel & Lyons, Kobe.
Mr. S. A. Ringer, British merchant and Vice-Consul at Shimonoseki.
Mr. F. E. E. Ringer, British merchant and Vice-Consul at Nagasaki.
His Majesty's Ambassador has subsequently reported that a school teacher named de Trafford, of Nagasaki, and a Mr. E. G. Price, a British merchant of Kobe, are also believed to have been detained.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª; and to be printed.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I move your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. It has been introduced by His
4
Majesty's Government to provide for a possible emergency—an emergency that may not arise. We may think that as the weeks pass it is less likely to arise; but an emergency none the less might arise, and it is one for which we should make preparation beforehand. In the terms of the Bill, on page 2, the emergency is described as one where
"by reason of recent or immediately apprehended enemy action the military situation is such as to require that criminal justice should be administered more speedily than would be practicable by the ordinary Courts.…"
As your Lordships know, such a situation is met under the law in various parts of the world by such devices as proclaiming a stage of siege. Indeed, even in our own phraseology we sometimes speak of a proclamation of Martial Law. The fact of the matter is that Martial Law is no part of the law of this country at all. The taking charge by the military of an area with the result that they punish civilians and execute sentences upon them may be brought about in extreme cases by considerations of necessity—a necessity which makes it only common sense that those who have immediate force at their disposal should use it in the public interest for the purpose of rapidly suppressing rebellion or treacherous conduct and punishing action which, if it had not immediately suffered punishment, would have been likely still further to damage the interests of the country. But no competent student of our Constitution will doubt what has again and again been said by the greatest authorities in ancient and modern times alike: that Martial Law—the application of the rule of soldiers to civilians—is no part of our law at all.
None the less, it is to that resource that we should have to turn if a situation so developed in some part of the Kingdom that it was no longer possible to rely on the administration of criminal justice in our ordinary civil Courts, The main purpose of this Bill, and one which I think your Lordships will generously and warmly support, is to secure that if per-adventure in the future a situation should arise in some area in this island where the ordinary law of the land was not reasonably able to administer criminal justice and either acquit or punish, we should devise a more speedy proceeding, well suited to the occasion, which would act not by setting up a system of military

5
courts, but by setting up special tribunals of a civilian kind staffed by men who were versed in the administration of the law. Military Law is, of course, the law which applies to those who are subject to it—soldiers, sailors and airmen—and that no doubt would go on in any event. But I do not doubt that this House will warmly desire to secure the results which I have indicated. It was found in the House of Commons that that was the universal wish; and there are many indications, which have, I suppose, reached most of us, that it is very much better, if we must do it, to devise some simple, rapid system of civil justice to deal with crime in a disturbed area, rather than that we should leave what is called Martial Law to be applied, carefully though that is done, by military officers, if not indeed very rapidly, as is shown by past experience in other parts of the world, but none the less so manifestly outside the law that at the end of it all we should need an Act of Indemnity to cover the decisions at which these military courts had arrived in respect of civilians.
That, then, is the object of this Bill. Should that emergency arise, the object is that we may, in such circumstances as may be provided for by Defence Regulations, secure that persons will be tried by such special Courts, not being Courts Martial, as may be provided. What are the requirements which we should satisfy? These special Courts, in the first place, must be able to act with great speed. In the situation which we are imagining, the rapid punishment of crime, and particularly of some kinds of crime, is absolutely essential, in order to maintain public order and to restrain others from committing like offences. We must also make sure that the Courts are properly staffed for the purpose of their work, and that provision shall be properly made to secure that justice is done. I may mention two matters not included in our ordinary lists of crimes which already we have found it necessary, in anticipation, to deal with by Defence Regulations. One is looting. If indeed there was a sustained air attack in some neighbourhood which threw great numbers of houses open to anyone who chose to make his way in, it is not possible to conceive a more serious crime than that there should be looting and the seizing of other people's property when
6
it is thus exposed. If such a thing were not rapidly suppressed, the results might be very serious indeed. Again, there is a crime which is well known to soldiers, but perhaps not so well known to others, the crime of breaking safeguard—that is to say, of forcing a way along a road or across a barricade and disregarding the necessary orders which are given and the necessary sentries that are posted. Such a thing, of course, can easily produce, and again and again on the Continent of Europe has produced, such disasters in its train as the indiscriminate helter-skelter of the civilian population. That cannot be allowed, and therefore these new Courts ought to be able to deal with offences of this kind very rapidly indeed.
I wish to put before the House the detailed provisions which are in course of being drafted in order to set up this new jurisdiction. The most essential things, of course, can be put in a Bill, but there are very important things for which in the circumstances we are bound to provide by Defence Regulations. For one thing, we are providing for an emergency which may arise at any time; and it is no good spending weeks and weeks in discussing a series of clauses if there is a risk of our needing to use these provisions almost forthwith. There is another reason, moreover, why we should largely rely on Defence Regulations for minor matters, and it is this. No one, I think, will doubt the desire of every responsible man in the country that these Courts should conduct their affairs fairly and quickly and with justice to all concerned; but this is a new departure, and it may be that in one particular or another some improvement will be shown to be necessary in the course of experience. This can be very much more readily dealt with by a change in the Defence Regulations rather than by producing an amending Act.
What, therefore, I desire to do, if your Lordships will allow it, is to give as clear a statement as I can of what the scheme is, based, of course, on the statutory provision that there will be special Courts, not Courts Martial, available for dealing with crime if the emergency which I have described should develop in any part of the country. That there is a general desire to avoid a situation in which soldiers would be trying and punishing

7
civilians is certain, because I am authorised to say by the War Office—and I have myself made inquiries of those responsible—that they most earnestly hope that Parliament will remove this task from their shoulders and will place it where it ought to be placed, on the shoulders of special civilian Courts. I should think that to attempt to administer justice in a civilian population by holding trials and pronouncing sentences must at all times be very repugnant to serving soldiers, and especially so if it is our own country which is being invaded, and when all the forces that were organised to defend us are anxious to engage in their real duties and do not want to tell off officers—and, of necessity, officers of superior rank—for the business of trying criminals who are not soldiers at all. I say, therefore, that we must have a civil Court, we must have a Court which does its work carefully and justly, and we must have a Court which does its work rapidly.
Now, my Lords, the scheme is this. It is proposed that in case of need, if the situation which I have described arises, the Minister for Home Security should at once declare a suitable area a war zone. He would act, of course, in consultation with the military authorities. Thereupon there would come into existence, with full jurisdiction, what we would propose to call a War Zone Court. A War Zone Court would have as its President one or other of a number of persons on a panel, who would be on a standard of equality with a Judge of the Supreme Court. Since it is proposed that I, as Lord Chancellor, should have the duty of selecting the individuals, I may tell your Lordships that very great care will be taken to secure, as everybody would wish, members of the High Court who by experience and training and, if you like, by temperament, are the best who can be secured for such a purpose. It may be necessary occasionally to add not exactly High Court Judges but others who are included in the Commission of Assize—trained lawyers, King's Counsel of considerable standing. In substance, however, the War Zone Court will be a Court whose President is a High Court Judge.
It has been very strongly represented to me by some High Court Judges, and I
8
do not think there is any harm in saying it here, that while they will, of course, endeavour to discharge any duty which the State calls upon them to discharge in these times, nevertheless to put a single man all alone to decide the question of whether a fellow-citizen shall or shall not be shot is a terrible burden. It is one which cannot be paralleled in any system of criminal justice of which I know. Necessarily there cannot be a jury and, in the Continental systems with which I am acquainted, in cases of that kind the presiding Judge always has a number of advisers. The proposal here is that there should be added to each War Zone Court in respect of every case which it tries, two other members as advisory members, not having the powers of a majority to outvote a trained and expert Judge either on fact or on legal points, but whom he is required to consult, with whom he will confer, and who will give him, it may be, special help because of their knowledge of the part of the country from which they come.
Who should these advisory members be? That has been very carefully considered, and I am quite clearly of the view that the right panel of advisory members is a selection from the justices of the peace, over whom the Lord Chancellor exercises a certain responsibility, and I am confident that he can find a list of suitable persons who have had experience who will bring to the task the qualities that are required, and who will give to the High Court Judge who presides and the public and the prisoner a sense that the matter is not going to be dealt with by a single person. Of course arrangements will be made in the Regulations to secure that if the accused is a poor man the Poor Prisoners legislation shall apply to him. Of course the sittings will be in open Court except in the rare cases when it may be necessary, in the public interest or for reasons of defence, to sit within closed doors. And of course, broadly speaking, the general procedure which is carried on in a Court of criminal justice in this country—which I make bold to say is the best in the world—will unquestionably be available.
Why will this be more speedy than the existing method? It will be much more speedy for this reason, that it will be possible under this system either for the military or for the police to bring any particular accusation, any particular

9
person who has been arrested or detained, before this Court in the first instance without any delay at all. Your Lordships know very well how the great mass of our criminal cases are decided after a process which begins before the magistrates, where evidence is laboriously recorded; then, if the magistrates commit, there is a certain pause, after which, either at Quarter Sessions or at the Assize Court, when the Assize Judge comes round, the matter may be tried and disposed of. That time-table in this case is quite impossible; therefore the great advantage is that the special Courts will be available to act in the first instance as promptly as anybody wants them. Arrangements will be made that both the President and those who sit with him will be available at the shortest notice. There will not be listed sittings at certain intervals, but they will be available whenever they are required.
There is one other thing I wish to mention under this head. It would be a great misfortune if, in this attempt to secure swifter justice, you block or clog the special Courts with cases which, though they may be serious cases of crime, none the less do not call for any very special dispatch. False coinage of money is no doubt a grave offence, and there are many others, such as long-term frauds. It would appear to be quite absurd to organise this special system of justice and then allow it to be overlaid by cases of that sort. It is provided that the presiding Judge of this special Court should have the right, not as a result of an argument before him, but as a result of examining the information—in some cases depositions—to say, "This case can perfectly well be dealt with when next the Court of Assize or Quarter Sessions sits. My duty here is to deal with the urgent cases and to postpone cases like this because of their character." That I think will be generally approved.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Could the noble and learned Viscount say how many advisory members there will be?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There will be two sitting with each President, and there will have to be a panel of a considerable number because, even on grounds of speed, one can imagine a situation where it is important to be able
10
to get hold of two people in the area where the Court will sit. Of course the Court will not sit at one particular place. It will not sit at the Old Bailey, it will be at a place most convenient for the purpose. It must be far enough distant from the fighting for the solemn business of the law to be conducted without interruption, but otherwise it has to be as near to the zone of fighting as may be.
There is one other thing I should like to tell your Lordships, and the more so because it is not at present indicated in the Bill before your Lordships' House. The Home Secretary has been considering this matter very closely with public men and Members of Parliament who, like the rest of us, are much concerned to see that there is an adequate protection for the subject—a most important thing. Even a High Court Judge may not be altogether immune from the sensations of the hour, and, whatever happens, we must see that people are not condemned on grave suspicion but are properly tried; and it has been pointed out that it would be a great strengthening of the system if there was some provision for the review of the decision of the War Zone Court. Of course, the full-fledged and elaborate retrial, with all the witnesses all over again, and the argument all over again, is not contemplated. You have to remember that we are devising a system which will be substituted for the action of the military, under Military Law, and if we are too elaborate, put too many additional cogs into the machine, then we shall not satisfy the demand for a speedy decision. I believe there is a strong case for the provision in important and serious cases for a review, and the Home Secretary informs me that he has made provisional suggestions of this kind which, at any rate as far as those whom he has consulted are concerned, are thought to be satisfactory. It is proposed that there should be constituted a panel of judges of the highest possible standard and quality, from whom can be drawn individuals for the purpose of reviewing serious sentences. My own idea is that I could make the panel out of members of the Court of Appeal and the Law Lords who have served here in your Lordships' House, and no doubt similar arrangements could be made in Scotland.

11
Now what should be the conditions under which this body of review is to be called into being? I think it would be a mistake in every case, some, maybe, extremely trumpery, to go through all this additional machinery, and the proposal in substance is this, that three—I emphasize three, because the numbers have been much debated—out of this higher panel should act as a body of review in every case where the sentence is a sentence of death, or in any other case where the President of the Court certifies that in his opinion the case has involved questions of special difficulty, whether of law or fact, or is one which for any other reason ought properly to be reviewed. Having consulted the Judges about it, we believe that would work satisfactorily.
I may add that although it is not by any means the case that as a matter of course there would be an appeal, with counsel and all the rest of it, none the less it is proposed to include provisions by which the same kind of action can be taken as is taken by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Your Lordships no doubt know that for a very long time in our history, for practical purposes, there was no appeal from criminal convictions until the Court of Criminal Appeal Act was passed. Appeals in the ordinary way from criminal convictions, except for technical reasons, were almost unknown. We now have a system in England which works admirably, by which, if the convicted person wishes to appeal, he sends up his papers, these papers are examined by Judges appointed for the purpose, they decide whether or not the case is one that justifies allowing a re-argument before them, and in these cases counsel are instructed and sometimes very important arguments on points of law emerge. I believe, subject to some simplification, we can do the same thing here.
If we do, we shall have achieved these results. We shall have secured—I trust we may be able at all costs to secure—this without recourse to Martial Law. That has never been any part of our system here. It represents nothing more than an effort on the part of the military, when the situation is sufficiently desperate, to try and keep order and punish crime. Though I recognise with how much care
12
that has sometimes been done by the British Army in various areas abroad, we should all be very sorry to write in our history that it has ever occurred in this island at all. We shall have secured, in the second place, that the crimes which must be dealt with quickly will be dealt with by a tribunal set up for the purpose, and presided over by a High Court Judge of experience and suitable for the task. We shall have secured, in the third place, if there be a case that justifies it, that that shall not be the end of it, but that there shall be a review of the decision, whether on fact or on law, and that the utmost we can do shall be done to maintain the high standard of British justice and, I will add, of fair treatment of our own fellow citizens, however unpopular they may be, which is one of the first duties of any criminal court. All this would not in any way remove the discretion that rests, and must rest, with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who has the duty—and nobody can take it from him—of advising His Majesty on the Prerogative of mercy.
I submit to your Lordships that that is a workable and fair scheme, and one that would justify general support. I shall look forward with great interest to any suggestions which are made in the course of the debate. I believe it will be a very great achievement for us to establish this system now in order that we may use it should it be necessary, but our greatest hope is that the day may never come when it will be necessary to use it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.36 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE,LORD MOTTISTONE, who had given Notice that, on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would move, That the Bill be read 2ª this day six months, said: My Lords, I rise to move the rejection of this Bill, not in any spirit of hostility to the Government, for I have consulted the Home Secretary himself and the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack, but because I consider—and I trust some of your Lordships will agree with me—that this legislation is not well devised, that the proclamation of war zones, as is proposed, quite overlooks the nature of the problem we have to face, and that we ought not to give the Executive further power to

13
repress the citizens of this country until we have given them perfectly clear guidance as to what their duties are in the country as a whole or in the war zones, to which I object.
Why do I object to this proposal to set up war zones? It is all part of the notion, as I see it, which has grown up in Government Departments to make a distinction between the place where hostilities are likely to occur in this country and at the same time between the duties of citizens with regard to that invasion. With deep respect, taking the Lord Chancellor's own words, what can be the sense of setting up a Court sufficiently remote from the fighting to be free from the embarrassment thus caused, and not sufficiently near as to run the danger of being overcome itself, when we are told by the War Office that we must naturally expect invasion to be from the sea and from the air, and that it may come anywhere? Anyone who knows this country, and has moved about it, is aware that in all parts of it arrangements are made to withstand the enemy. Therefore the first point I make to the Lord Chancellor, who was good enough to say in his clear exposition that he would answer all points raised, is: Why not make the Bill applicable to Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a whole?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the same time?
LORD MOTTISTONE: At the same time—whenever you do one, do all, because the danger of invasion must in the nature of the case be imminent in every part of this, realm, as daily experience shows. If it be said that actual invasion means invasion in force from the sea, I would say we have also been told by the War Office, in communications we have read in the newspapers, that it is quite possible very considerable invasion might be made from the air, inland, as was the case in Norway and other countries. Therefore I say the zone system is wrong. I maintain that this extraordinary power should not be given to set up a special Court, with apparently a very restricted right of appeal, until we have told the citizens exactly what is their duty. They have not yet been told. In a previous debate I raised the point as to the rights and duties of the citizen as laid down by domestic and International Law. Surely the first thing a
14
citizen ought to be told, before we set up a Court that can condemn him to death, as I understand, for what the Lord Chancellor has called rebellious conduct, is to be told what is the law he must obey. That is still in doubt in the minds of many citizens in this country, though I believe it is not in doubt in the minds of any member of His Majesty's Government. The Lord Chancellor will tell me if I am wrong, but I believe that all members of His Majesty's Government are agreed that the citizens of this country are bound by domestic and International Law to use all the force they can to overcome an invader.
In order to make this point, may I remind your Lordships of the International Law on the subject? It may be said "But surely people know this." Indeed they do not. The Home Guard—the L.D.V. as they were called—are many of them in great doubt. In my own county I have been asked a dozen times whether they will be acting contrary to International Law if they shoot in front of a village in order to repel an invader. We have been told quite clearly at different times by members of the Government that, of course, they are to be treated as combatants, but it has never been put in one specific document laying it down that they are to be treated as combatants and belligerents. In order that I may convince your Lordships that there is some justification for a statement of this sort to be made before we pass this repressive legislation, I will relate a conversation I had the other day. I then met a man whom everybody respects, and it so happens that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi was in company with me and he may remember the occasion. The gentleman in question was Sir Hugh O'Neill, who, I suppose, may be regarded as one of the most level-headed and well-informed men you could find. I put this point to him. I think he is a member of His Majesty's Government, if I remember aright.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: NO.
LORD MOTTISTONE: The Lord Chancellor told me this morning that he was, but at any rate he was the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and he is a man of renowned common sense and remarkably well informed. I said to him, "Are any of your people clear as to what their rights and duties are?" And

15
he replied: "Not according to English law." "But what about International law?" "We are a good deal puzzled about that." Therefore I rehearsed to him what I will now tell your Lordships. Article (1) of The Hague Convention of 1907 runs:
"The laws, rights and duties of war apply not only to an Army but also to Militia and Volunteer Corps fulfilling the following conditions: (a) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) to have a fixed distinctive emblem visible at a distance; (c) to carry arms openly; and (d) to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
That latter is very important. Germany has agreed to that Convention and it is just as well that it should be clearly stated so that every civilian shall understand that he is acting not only in conformity with the law of this land, but with International Law to which Germany agrees.
I do beg of the Lord Chancellor to promise me that he will make this abundantly clear, because it would have a double advantage. The citizen Army would be reminded that all must obey the laws and customs of war—that is to say, for example, that they will not use flat-nosed bullets and they will not murder a prisoner. There will also be the great advantage that our enemies, who talk of reprisals which have been threatened within the last forty-eight hours, will understand that if they either shot people or set fire to a village and death ensued, then without having recourse to the Courts which the Lord Chancellor desires to set up, they could be tried by the ordinary law of the land and, if convicted, would be found guilty of murder and no doubt executed. The sooner they realise that the better. It seems pretty certain that this country will be a graveyard to those who invade it. As was suggested by a town councillor on one occasion when he objected to the building of a wall round a cemetery: "Why do that seeing that those who are inside never can get out?" It is pretty clear that those who come into this country now cannot get out. That being so they had better look at and behave according to the laws and customs to which they themselves adhere.
I would add that it does seem to me rather strange, apart from the two points I have raised, that the right of appeal should be so restricted. I did not quite
16
understand from the Lord Chancellor whether there was or was not a right of appeal in cases where a man might be sentenced to penal servitude for life, or whether it was confined to the death penalty, nor do I quite clearly understand on whose motion the appeal should be granted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the motion of the accused.
LORD MOTTISTONE: That clears that up. No doubt the Lord Chancellor will tell us to what classes it is restricted, but generally I think we ought to have an assurance either that the whole war zone system will be abandoned or that it will be explained more fully. Until I can have a definite assurance that the citizens shall be clearly told their duty in one or the other category—soldiers, sailors and all the rest—then I cannot see my way to withdraw my opposition to this Bill. There is another point of controversy which I mentioned to the Home Secretary and to the Lord Chancellor, and to which, I have been informed since I came to this House more than one member desires to draw attention. But I was advised by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that to discuss it fully might be inconvenient, if not dangerous, in the public interest.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt my noble and gallant friend, to say that I pointed out that if he was to discuss that matter he would be discussing a document which had been entrusted to him and which was marked "Secret"?
LORD MOTTISTONE: Oh no, it has nothing whatever to do with that. The document that was shown to me was shown to me at the War Office by a responsible official concerned. I am sorry if I did not make it quite clear to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. The information came to me that there was such a document, and since it has been mentioned it might as well be said that it was something to do with the action of the police. It came to me from my own county, where I was told that the L.D.V. or Home Guards were doubtful as to what they ought to do and were not quite clear what the policemen were going to do. So I went to the War Office and said, "What is all this about?" They showed me the document. When I was told it was a secret document I said

17
I would not discuss it in Parliament. When I saw my noble and learned friend this morning, I told him that I did not propose to discuss it. The matter has been raised, and it was suggested that, if it be thought fit that it should be discussed, it should be discussed by the Home Secretary with myself and perhaps one or two members of this House who are interested in the matter instead of debating it here. I am entirely agreeable to that, but unless some assurance is given that this matter will be reviewed, it would, be dangerous to allow it to rest where it is. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Leave out the word ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Mottistone).
4.48 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, my noble friends who sit upon these Benches have asked me to represent to your Lordships their views upon the Bill. As my noble friends have made clear since the outbreak of the war, they are prepared to support the Government in any measure which is calculated to promote the prosecution of the war and is so justified by the Government. This measure is no such measure, since it will neither advance in itself nor retard the prosecution of the war. It is, in my submission to your Lordships, an administrative measure, acceptance or rejection of which should be based purely on the balance of convenience, and in so far as it derogates—as in some respects undoubtedly it does—from existing rights of His Majesty's lieges in regard to the administration of justice, it is clear that your Lordships' House will desire to scrutinise it with a jealous eye.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in his illuminating explanation, did not, I think, draw the attention of your Lordships' House to a matter which certainly seems to be worthy of some attention, and that is the difference between the purpose of this Bill as contained in it when originally presented to your Lordships' House and that purpose as defined now. In its original form as presented to the other House on June 10, and presented in the same form to your Lordships' House, its object was stated to be to "extend further the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under
18
the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act"—to extend further. In the Bill as it is now presented to your Lordships the Bill is entitled "an Act to remove doubts as to the extent of the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty" under the same Act. I think it would be interesting, if I may so invite him, to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor if, when addressing your Lordships again, he would be so good as to give some explanation of that discrepancy between the Bill as originally presented and the Bill as it stands now.
What are the doubts which this Bill is to resolve? The Bill in some of its aspects is of limited application. For instance, it is limited in point of time. The special Court may only be established and the war zone may only be proclaimed when an invasion is either imminent or recent. The Bill is silent as to the situation whilst the battle is actually in course of being waged, and I desire to ask the noble and learned Viscount this question: whether it is correct to understand that during the period of the actual waging of battle, and in the area in which battle is actually being waged, the rights of a military commander to deal with difficult situations, persons and offences out of hand, shall I say, or by way of drumhead Court Martial, will remain unaffected, or whether that right is in any manner whittled away by the Bill in the form in which it is presented to your Lordships. Your Lordships will understand that I have been careful to avoid the use of the phrase Martial Law or Military Law. I am asking the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether in the circumstances which must be contemplated the rights of a military commander on the spot during the actual course of a battle are affected or unaffected. It seems to me to be vital that these rights should be left unaffected.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested that if these war zones were ever to be proclaimed they should be proclaimed universally throughout the length and breadth of the land and irrespective of the conditions which might prevail in any particular part of the land. I gravely trust that your Lordships will not accede to the view of the noble Lord. The procedure of the Courts built up through centuries, the confidence inspired

19
by the manner in which trials are held, is something which should be, I believe, preserved as long as, and over as wide an area as, is possible. It should only be restricted when stern necessity makes that restriction inevitable. I trust that your Lordships' House will refrain from anything that would extend the operation of these special Courts beyond the area or beyond the time when it is manifestly essential. It is to be observed that this Bill, whilst it will operate to keep civilians out of military courts or Courts Martial—I am not confusing the two kinds of court, but I wish to be sufficiently comprehensive in what I say—does at the same time enable those who are members of His Majesty's Forces to be brought within the purview of the civil Courts, and I do not know what precisely is the object of that provision which would give jurisdiction in these special Courts to the President of the Court over members of His Majesty's Forces, whereas in normal circumstances members of His Majesty's Forces would expect to be under the jurisdiction set up by the relevant Statute. I do not know what is the object of that. It may be an advantage; it may be with the idea of extending the rights which civil Courts have at present of exercising a certain jurisdiction over members of His Majesty's Forces. I ask the question because I should like to know.
There is a case that can be made for the legalisation of Field General Courts Martial in the war zone, or perhaps, more accurately, in the battle zone, but that would result undoubtedly in civilians being brought within the purview of such military courts or Courts Martial in contradistinction to the jurisdiction being exclusively that of civilian Courts. It would be interesting if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would explain to your Lordships' House what view, if any, His Majesty's Government have formed with regard to the functions of Field General Courts Martial.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has made it clear that the judicial authority of these Courts will be reposed in a single Judge with assessors, and that there is to be no preliminary investigatory period before a court of
20
subordinate jurisdiction. I should like to know, as a matter arising incidentally out of that statement of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, what is to be the position of the courts of summary jurisdiction as such, not in their capacity, if it be accurately called so, of investigatory or examining courts, courts of preliminary examination, but as courts, within a limited sphere, of final jurisdiction. Then I gathered from the Lord Chancellor that in no wise by this Bill is the Royal Prerogative of mercy affected, but that there will be interposed between the War Zone Court and the Minister advising His Majesty this new Court of Review. The physical circumstances which must be envisaged, and which His Majesty's Government in another connection have envisaged, are such that there may come a point of time when communication between the Central Government, wherever they may be situated, the place where the crime is alleged to have been committed, and the place of trial by the special Court, may be impossible. What will the position be then with regard to review and to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative? Will the functions normally exercised by the Home Secretary vest, as I understand all other powers of the Government vest in such circumstances, in the Civil Commissioner on the spot? If not, what provision will be made for delay, which may be long and indeed almost indefinite?
The Lord Chancellor told us that the Courts will be peripatetic Courts meeting as and where occasion may require. Who is the person responsible for summoning and creating these Courts? Is it, as I understood, the Lord Chancellor? If it is, then what is the position to be if and when the Lord Chancellor, by force of physical circumstances, is unable to communicate with the war zone? Will his functions then vest in the Civil Commissioner, and will it then be the Civil Commissioner who will nominate the President of the special Court? Is it the Civil Commissioner who will designate the assessing justices of the peace? Is it the Civil Commissioner who will appoint the place where the Court is to meet? These are quite practical questions which do not arise on the face of the Bill but which I think it is not out of place for me to bring before the attention of your Lordships.

21
One final question to the Lord Chancellor. He has referred to Regulations which are to be made with regard to this whole matter. Some of those Regulations will doubtless be for the purpose of creating new offences; others will be directed to the procedure of these Courts, both as Courts of First Instance, if I may so put it, and as Courts of Appeal. My noble friends seated upon these Benches are anxious to know whether this House will have the opportunity of seeing and considering those Regulations before it is asked finally to dispose of this Bill. Subject to such an opportunity being given and to these Regulations being acceptable to my noble friends on these Benches, they will support the Bill.
5.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble friend beside me has moved the rejection of this measure on the Second Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has just spoken, drew attention to the marked difference which exists between this measure as your Lordships are considering it and the form in which it was originally introduced in another place. I can say at once that had it come here in that form, many of your Lordships would have been disposed to support Lord Mottistone in its rejection, because the measure as then worded would have been thought almost arbitrary and drastic even in Moscow. It has now undoubtedly been very seriously modified, and in the form in which it was laid before the House by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack I confess I should not be prepared to vote against its Second Reading.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone removed the question into a rather different field, and I did not quite follow his argument. It appeared to me that he was dealing with possible action which might be taken by British citizens against an invading enemy. It had not occurred to me that this measure was intended to touch that side of the business at all. I thought it merely applied to possible offences committed by people resident in this country, whether His Majesty's subjects or others, and in no sense to anything that was done in relation to invasion. That is to say, it had not occurred to me that even if the citizens of this country, as my noble friend described, were guilty of a breach of
22
International Law by shooting prisoners or some other act of the kind, such acts would be considered amenable to these Courts. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will make that point altogether clear. I had understood that the cases brought before these Courts would concern offences by people resident in this country against either the Forces or other people resident here. At the same time, I am not clear in my mind about the proclamation of a particular war zone, or how the existence of these zones will work when it comes to offences committed by people who may be moving about the country and may at some time be altogether outside the war zone. However, that is a point on which I do not doubt that the Lord Chancellor will be able to inform us.
On the whole question, I confess that I am one of those who do not see the very urgent necessity for a measure of this kind, and certainly not for the extreme hurry with which it was introduced, and for the way in which it was treated as an emergency measure and as though the emergency existed at this moment, whereas we all know, and we all hope, that it may never come into existence at all. At the same time, I confess that I feel a certain sympathy for His Majesty's Government, because one sees how harshly they have been treated by some sections of public opinion in the matter of the delay and procrastination of which at any rate their predecessors were assumed to have been so uniformly guilty and any kind of imputation of which they desire to escape. From some of the communications which one sees in the Press, it almost seems as though some critics thought that it did not matter very much what was done, so long as it was done quickly, and not much time was spent in thinking about it. That, I think, has accounted for more than one thing. It has accounted, I believe, for the extreme hurry with which this measure was introduced. It probably accounted also for the completely indiscriminate internment of aliens, leaving all inquiry until the unfortunate people interned had undergone in some cases great inconvenience and even a certain amount of privation. But, as I say, His Majesty's Government have stated that this measure is one which in the public interest ought to be passed, and for that

23
reason I should certainly not be one to take the responsibility of refusing to give it a Second Reading.
5.13 p.m.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I am bound to say that, looking at this Bill and nothing but this Bill, I shared the anxiety which I know has been felt by a great many people interested in the administration of criminal justice at the unlimited powers, without any express safeguards, that are given to the Government in this matter; because I imagine that it is quite without precedent for Parliament to confide to the Executive the power to create new Courts with powers of life and death without there being any provision at all qualifying the nature of the jurisdiction. If your Lordships will look at the Bill, you will find that it is all contained in about twenty words—namely, that persons may
"in such circumstances as may be provided by the Regulations, be tried by such special Courts, not being Courts Martial, as may be so provided."
Those words do not define where the Courts are to operate, how the Courts are to be constituted, by whom they are to be constituted, what the crimes are which the Courts are to try, at what period of time the acts must have been committed which are to be tried, what the procedure of the trial is, or what possible appeal there is in respect of it.
All that has to be filled up later; and therefore I think that there was a good deal in the suggestion which fell from one noble Lord, and which has been made, I think, by others, that it would have been desirable if Parliament had been placed in possession of the proposed draft Regulations before this Bill was finally passed, so as to give some form and content to the provisions which the Government were actually making. On the other hand, I appreciate very well that in the opinion of the Government, as advised by their military advisers, this is a case where these powers should be placed promptly in the Courts which it is desired to set up, and I see that, if the Regulations are to be subject to discussion, then first of all they have to be prepared—and I do not think that the Lord Chancellor would be in a position to say at the present moment that the Regulations
24
have been finally completed—and afterwards they would be capable of being discussed at very great length. The alternative process has been adopted, which seems to me on the whole to be fair and reasonable—namely, that the responsible Minister of the Crown should, in opening this Bill, both in another place and as was done so clearly here by the Lord Chancellor, state what the proposals were. When we are in possession of those proposals, and we know in substance what they are going to be, I think that we are in a position to discuss them, and we are in almost as good a position as if we had actually seen the Regulations in print. I myself am in the fortunate position of the Lord Chancellor having been kind enough to read to me some of the provisions—I think the more important provisions—which are proposed, and they certainly satisfied me that the ordinary safeguards of justice which we associate with the criminal courts, will in fact be maintained.
There are three matters which, if I had not had the security of knowing that they would be in the Regulations, I should have wished to put in the Bill, because they are absolutely essential to secure justice. One is that the parties should be able to be represented by solicitor or counsel. We are assured that that will be in the Regulations. Another is that the ordinary rules of evidence applicable in the criminal Courts should be applicable in these cases. I am assured by the Lord Chancellor that that is going to be in the Regulations, and I think that he stated that here. The third is that the parties should have the power of compelling witnesses to attend the Courts, the same power which they possess now in an ordinary criminal Court, or indeed at a Court Martial, and that that power should extend—I think that this is very important—to military witnesses, so that the military authorities should not be able to withhold their attendance except on absolutely reasonable grounds. I understand that that also will be secured. With those safeguards in the Regulations, it seems to me quite unnecessary that we should put them into the Bill. I myself am quite satisfied with the assurance which has been given.
Then there is the power of appeal, or rather of review, to which the members of another House attached very great im-

25
portance, and to which your Lordships will no doubt attach great importance. That appears to me to be entirely satisfactory except in one particular, and I would ask the Lord Chancellor to consider this matter. There is a review as of right when a prisoner has been sentenced to death, but there are sentences which are almost as bad as death—very long terms of penal servitude, for life, for ten years, for fourteen years and so forth—and I cannot help thinking that it is rather hard that a man sentenced to penal servitude for life should have no right of review, and indeed that there should be no power of review unless the Judge certifies that there is a difficult question which arises. In my experience of Judges, and of the very best Judges—and perhaps because they are the very best Judges—they are apt to be completely satisfied with the result of a trial once they have decided it, and consequently they do not entertain very much doubt; though I have also found in my experience of the Appellate Courts that Courts of Appeal have very often not agreed with them, however satisfied they may have been in the first instance. I cannot help thinking that it would not cause delay and it would lead to a proper administration of justice and satisfy the wishes of a great many people if, on the application of a person sentenced to a severe penalty, there should be some power of review. For instance, one of the reviewing Judges might have an opportunity of considering whether there is some ground for the application. I cannot help thinking that that would be an advantage.
The only other thing I wish to say is this. It is a small matter, but there is a provision for the Judge to sit with two justices. I cannot understand what they have to do. They have no responsibilities of any sort or kind. The Judge may differ from them, yet he has called to his aid, not assessors in the sense of persons who are skilled in some special knowledge which he is not supposed to possess, but subordinate judges, unprofessional judges, who are not in the least as qualified as he is to form an opinion. I do not know why he should be supposed to attach any importance to their opinion. It is as though a General who had to plan a campaign were obliged before he came to his decision to call to his aid two subalterns in
26
order that he might have the comfort of knowing that there was someone with whom he could discuss the matter. If it is said that it relieves the Judge of responsibility, I would answer that it is a much greater burden put upon him when the two assessors form one opinion and he differs from them. The responsibility then imposed upon the Judge of convicting of a capital offence is obviously much greater than if he had nobody there at all. It seems to me it only weakens the administration of justice, and I cannot imagine a Judge, who is able enough and strong enough, not being able to decide this for himself. I do not understand why he should require the assistance of two untrained justices of the peace sitting with him. But that is a matter of detail, and it can be left for the Government to decide.
I do not quite appreciate the difficulty expressed by my noble and gallant friend (Lord Mottistone), and some of the statements he made are a little dangerous, unless he desires to confine the duties of a citizen to those who become members of His Majesty's Forces. As to men of the Home Guard, there is no question, in view of the Regulations, that they do in fact become completely members of His Majesty's Forces, subject to Military Law. There is no question at all about this, provided the Government will in due course provide them with uniforms.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Surely that is wrong. There is nothing in International Law providing for a uniform to be worn, and that should not be stated without being at once countered. A visible emblem, visible from a distance, is what is required by International Law. It has nothing to do with a uniform.
LORD ATKIN: I entirely agree, but I am bound to say that I thought that the visible emblem of a soldier at a distance meant a uniform, and I do not believe that an armlet, unless it is an armlet of quite alarming dimensions, would be visible at a distance. But I am talking now of citizens who are allowed to defend themselves against the enemy or to attack the enemy, and I venture to say it would be a great mistake—and I think the mistake would be already made—if members of the public were encouraged to believe that, without belonging to the Home Guard, they could seize their shotguns and shoot down the first parachutist that they

27
saw. They would then be francs-tireurs, and would be so treated, I have no doubt, by the enemy, and would bring themselves and their families into danger. I think it is very important that that matter should be made clear, and I am very glad to have had an opportunity of stating it. However, this is departing from the present Bill. The point I wish to make is that now that we have been told we can rely upon the assurances that have been given as to the provisions that have been made, I think the ordinary safeguards of justice for the administration of these Courts have been provided for. In those circumstances, I think the right course for this House to take is to give this Bill a Second Reading.
5.27 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I think what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord just now is most dangerous, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will put the matter right. With the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord, he is playing right into the hands of our mortal enemy. He is claiming, I understand, that the Home Guards are to be treated as francs-tireurs. The Germans are claiming that now in their published wireless statements: they are stating publicly that the Home Guards are francs-tireurs, whether they wear uniform or not.
LORD ATKIN: Will the noble Lord forgive me? I said as plainly as I could that if you were to avoid being treated as a franc-tireur you ought to become a member of the Home Guard, for then you are a member of His Majesty's Forces.
LORD STRABOLGI: With great respect, that is not what the noble and learned Lord said. What he said was that he thought the armlet was not sufficient and there must be a uniform. That is what I take exception to. It is known that over 1,300,000 men have enlisted in the Home Guard, and it is known that they cannot have uniforms, and a visible badge has been given. The Nazis are now saying, "These men are francs-tireurs and we will take reprisals against them if they act against our troops." And what the noble and learned Lord has said, as he will see if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, lends
28
substance to that. The badge is within International Law, without a uniform—it is a uniform; it is the visible sign which puts us all within International Law. Not that I gather that International Law, either on land or on sea or in the air, is in any way hampering the Germans in the carrying out of what they consider their military policy, and the less that we rely on the Germans respecting International Law the better for ourselves. I do hope that the Lord Chancellor will put this matter right, because what Lord Atkin said, I repeat, is very dangerous indeed. An armlet, a brassard, puts us within the law. As for the man with the shotgun, he ought to belong to the Home Guard, but recruiting for the Home Guard has now been stopped; they cannot deal with any more.
May I put one question to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, which my noble friends and myself have discussed, and my noble friend Lord Nathan, as a newly enrolled Peer, felt rather too modest to raise himself? The noble Viscount on the Woolsack has the right to say I have not the same modesty. This is a hereditary question, and I claim my hereditary right not to feel modest. I refer to the Privilege of Peers to be tried by their Peers in serious offences—in cases of treason and felony, I think.
LORD ATKIN: Treason or felony.
LORD STRABOLGI: What is the position of a Peer under this Bill? What is the position of a Peer who comes before this special Court and who is accused of one of these offences for which he is entitled to be tried by his Peers? I presume the Government have considered that point, and I respectfully ask for a ruling.
5.31 p.m.
LORD ROCHE: My Lords, I propose to trouble your Lordships with a few observations expressing my reasons for giving my support to this Bill and also expressing a hope which I trust will receive attention from those responsible for the form of the Bill. As to the first matter, I forbear to follow my noble friends into a discussion of the rights of the Home Guard and the citizen because the first time the matter was mentioned by Lord Mottistone I failed to see any close connection between that topic and

29
the Bill we are now considering. On the matter of law, I confess I incline to the view that my noble friend Lord Atkin is more or less correct in his law, but, speaking for myself, as a practical matter, I propose to adopt the view and attitude of the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, and I propose to take part in any proceedings, although at the risk of being regarded as a franc-tireur, knowing I shall get no worse treatment in that way. The Lord Chancellor can decide in his own discretion how far he may go into the matter, but that is my view for what it is worth as to the connection between that matter and this Bill. The Lord Chancellor has expressed in the clearest language the reasons why self-abnegation to the military Forces of the Crown should be acceded to. Speaking for myself, I have the greatest respect for the combatant Forces of the Crown, but I am happy indeed to think they will not be charged, and do not seek to charge themselves, with the administration of the law in these matters which we are now considering.
I propose to say one word or two as to why it should not be left to the ordinary methods of procedure before magistrates and Judges' Courts of Assize. Some of your Lordships may know that I spent more years than I now care to think—seventeen years—as a Judge of the King's Bench Division administering criminal law, and in the five years since I ceased to exercise that function I have occupied myself as a magistrate in the country, and Chairman of Quarter Sessions in my county, with the administration of criminal law. I share the view of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack that it is an excellent system. I do not say it is perfect, but it is a good system for ordinary circumstances. But it would be most undesirable, if this emergency happens, if what I may compendiously call "war offences" were left to the administration of ordinary justice. Not only is it slow, but an ordinary justice of the peace is a layman. He is often presided over by a good chairman; not always. He is generally advised by a good clerk; not always. He is proceeding upon ordinary lines. He is, as a rule, timid about novelties, and if he is not timid he is sometimes in a panic. The best evidence as to the undesirability of these exceptional offences being
30
dealt with by ordinary tribunals was the result that was seen and had to be dealt with by the executive Government of the very varying sentences inflicted on what I may call over-talkative people. It would be far better that these matters should be left to the sort of court which was adumbrated and sketched by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack. Therefore I say that this Bill, in its main intent and design, is a measure designed for the safety of the country and does not in my view impinge at all on the proper liberty of the subject.
I share the view expressed by Lord Atkin, that he has seen better Bills. So have I; but the explanation was filled in by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and we may safely give the Bill a Second Reading. At all events that is my judgment. The last matter is this. I would express the hope that in the Regulations—this properly occurs on the Second Reading, because it would not be a matter for amendment at all—the magistrates' courts may receive the necessary guidance as to where they are to commit cases for trial. I fully understood the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to say that it would be open to the Judge of the Emergency Court to say he was not going to try cases of arson, coining, and so on. But it would be extremely unfortunate if magistrates were left in any doubt that they should commit ordinary cases to the ordinary Courts of the realm. If they made a mistake, as they may well do, on a border-line case, as to where they should commit, I agree that a residual power should be left to the Emergency Court Judge to say, "Take it away, and take it to an ordinary Court." I hope the matter will not be left absolutely bare. Without undertaking the task of somebody else in drafting the Regulations, I suggest there might be at least a statement that it was what I may call, compendiously, war offences or offences of that nature which it was contemplated should be dealt with by the Emergency Courts. These are the observations I desired to make to your Lordships, and I hope this Bill will receive a Second Reading.
5.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I want only to ask one question about this Bill. I do not feel the

31
anxiety that some noble Lords do as to the possible diminution of the rights of the subject under the Bill. On the contrary, as far as I can understand—I dare say I have wholly misunderstood it—it is really a Bill for safeguarding the rights of the subject much more than infringing them. I used to be told—I do not know whether it is still admitted—that Martial Law was the negation of all law; that is, Martial Law quite distinct from Military Law, which is a totally different thing. Martial Law is the right which a General in the field has to safeguard the military operations in which he is engaged, and when the state of things justifies it, to substitute for ordinary law the will of the General commanding in the field. I used to be told that that was Martial Law.
Where you have a thing which is described in this Bill as a war zone—that is to say, a district of the country which is subject to military operations and has been invaded by the enemy, or something of that kind—there you have the condition in which the General is entitled to carry out whatever he thinks is necessary in order to safeguard his troops, and no rules of law operate to prevent him doing so. At least that is what I have always understood, and I do not understand that it is proposed to remove that right. I do not think it would be possible to do so. You must leave that in the hands of the General as a supreme resource. But it is proposed—at least so I understand this Bill—to give an alternative where that alternative can be carried out. Instead of saying to the General, "Now if you are satisfied that the ordinary law does not operate, then you must go to Martial Law and carry out your law," leaving no other alternative, you give the public the alternative that in such a case as that where it is possible to do so, the offence shall be tried by a special tribunal set up by this Bill. That seems to me a very important safeguard for the rights of the public, and in no way an infringement of their existing rights.
I would not have troubled the House with these observations except for this doubt—namely, what is the exact emergency which has induced the Government to produce this Bill? I can see some very great emergencies which they may have had in their view. We all followed the
32
history of the German invasion of France, and we all know the fearful conditions which prevailed quite apart from the battle by reason of the refugees and all the confusion that the invasion caused. I quite agree that that is a thing which the Government are bound to foresee as a possibility, but only as a possibility, because, personally, I have not the slightest belief that an invasion can get as far as that but it might do so, and, if it should, it is a fearful evil which the Government of the day are bound to consider and provide for. I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor can help me about this difficulty—whether the Government really think this kind of measure is going to help to meet a danger of that kind. I dare say it is. It may be the best that can be done, and so far I should be warmly in favour of it, but I do not feel that even a special tribunal would be able to cope with such disasters as occurred in the invasion of France, arising from the refugees and the general confusion which must always take place in consequence of an invasion by an armed force. I do not know if I have made my point clear, and I shall be glad if the Lord Chancellor can help me.
5.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, a number of questions have been raised, and I desire briefly to deal with them in reply. May I begin with what has been last said? If I may say so, I think the noble Viscount who has just spoken has very admirably stated the real nature of Martial Law, a subject which is very often misunderstood. Military Law naturally can only apply to those who are subject to it—that is to say, soldiers and sailors and airmen and others under Military Law—but a situation may arise in which the only available power for keeping order and for punishing offenders is a military power. It may be that the ordinary Courts will be shut up, and something then has of necessity to be done, though I should be careful of any phrase just used by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, when he spoke of military authorities having the "right" to do this, that and the other. I believe the true view of it is that expressed long ago by a very famous man, a Judge and public man, Sir Mathew Hale, who, in a passage which is very often quoted, said this about Martial Law:

33
"Touching the business of Martial Law, these things are to be observed: That in truth and reality it is not a law but something indulged rather than allowed as a law; the necessity of government, order and discipline in an Army is that only which can give these laws countenance."
That is the reason why, whenever military authorities have exercised their powers against civilians—powers of trial and punishment.—it has always been thought necessary at the end of a war to pass an Act of Indemnity. There was an Act of Indemnity after the Boer War. Subject to that, I would accept entirely what the noble Viscount said.
It really is a case of the application of the principle of necessity. Just as when a number of people are crowded into a hotel and a fire breaks out, the man who is the natural leader and controller has to take charge, throw things out of the window, bundle ladies downstairs, and so on; so in a much larger field, when all other law has gone, you must leave the soldiers to do their best, and I think we all realise that the British military authorities take tremendous trouble to do that as well as they can. If they are to be criticised in cases which I have had occasion to observe, it is that sometimes they are almost too afraid of the technicalities of the law, and take rather too long in coming to a common-sense decision.
The noble Viscount is right when he says the scheme of this Bill is to devise, if we can, what I may call an intermediate buffer. It may not be possible even for a High Court Judge, whether accompanied or not, to perambulate about the field of battle, but presumably, if indeed there was for the moment any-think like an invasion in any corner of this island, a very great sense of strain would be set up in the back areas. One cannot say how far it would go, but there would be such a sense of strain, and it is certain that in such circumstances justices attending petty sessions once a fortnight and a Judge going round three times a year at Assizes would not be at all suitable for dealing with what was happening in such areas. This is an attempt to provide an intermediate method which, it is hoped, will greatly assist the forces of order and give great confidence to the local population that there is no occasion to rush here and there or to lose one's head, or, for example,
34
attempt to break through a guard and run along the roads, and so on. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, just now. It is not possible to say that by such a measure as this one abolishes any duty which may fall on the soldiers, for it will still be necessary to feel that we can turn to them to do the best they can for us in the situation that might arise. Therefore, this is a measure of insurance, a measure to provide for an intermediate position, and it is hoped that by this means we may be able to deal with events occurring in such a position. If we do, we shall, I think, give very great satisfaction, amongst others, to the military authorities, for the very last thing they wish to do is to send off Colonels, Majors and other people to sit in a Court for the purpose of trying civilians. That I think is the answer to that. May I add that there is really nothing surprising in providing that those who are under Military Law should also come before these Courts? It cannot be too clearly understood that a soldier is always subject to the ordinary law of the land. Some of us who have had practical experience of the administration of criminal law have seen the sad sight of a soldier in the dock charged with some dreadful offence by which he has disgraced his uniform.
I am most unwilling to travel outside the proper ambit of the Bill, but in reply to the question as to what is sufficient to justify a citizen in resisting without becoming a franc-tireur, without claiming to be an expert on every corner of International Law I have always understood that provided he belonged to an organised military body, provided he was under orders and was therefore disciplined and provided there was something about him which made him distinctive as a member of that body—uniform is best, but if not uniform, then some other distinctive emblem by which he can be identified at a distance—then beyond any question he is entitled to all the privileges, as certainly he has all the responsibilities, of a soldier.
My noble friend Lord Nathan pointed out quite truly that the Bill as now presented is described as a Bill to remove doubts, whereas originally it bore a different title. As to that I would say that, strictly speaking, there is no reason for the Government to introduce this Bill at all, because they could do the whole thing

35
by getting an Order in Council and springing it on everybody after it had been done. But the view which the Government took was that, when dealing with the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens, it would be a very monstrous thing to use that power without ever bringing it before the attention of Parliament. This Bill is really intended as much for the purpose of getting Parliamentary approval as for filling any gap which previously existed. The noble Lord also pointed out that this Bill was to operate when there had been recent or when there was immediately apprehended danger and asked whether between those two points the Bill would not apply. I am confident that the Courts could not operate in the field of battle. The only reason for those two phrases is that in order to create a war zone you want to have one or other of two reasons for doing it—either that there have been in that neighbourhood events of grave emergency or else that they are very shortly apprehended. There might be an air attack which did so much damage that it was really almost impossible to carry through the ordinary proceedings of the law and you would want the special Courts for dealing with looting, or, while nothing had yet happened in a district, what had happened elsewhere was of such a character as to make the creation of these Courts desirable, and desirable at once.
The noble Lord asked a question about courts of summary jurisdiction. I quite agree that it is a very important point, although it is one rather of detail. It is very necessary that the justices of the peace, discharging their ordinary work as unpaid magistrates—and I do not speak at all slightingly of that work which is done with very great devotion to duty and with great sense of fairness—must know what they will have to do. If they committed a case to the ordinary Courts when there had been created a war zone, complications might arise. There must be a detailed scheme with necessary instructions to the justices of the peace so that each case shall be dealt with in the most expeditious manner. To give an example, it would be ridiculous if the justices of the peace were not to exercise their ordinary jurisdiction in such a case as that of a person summoned for riding a bicycle without a light. You do not want an Emergency Court, staffed with
36
a High Court Judge, to deal with that. Therefore some kind of machinery must be devised.
Then I was asked a question about the exercise of the Prerogative. I do not contemplate that the Prerogative should be, as it were, farmed out. It is, I think, one of the gravest and most trying duties that can rest upon anybody who is Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Others of your Lordships know that as well as myself. If it was found really necessary we might have to make a new Defence Regulation, but I think we ought to hang on as long as we can to the principle that the Prerogative which belongs to the Crown should be exercised on the advice of the Minister responsible to Parliament and not anyone else. I was also asked who would decide where the Courts should sit, and it was suggested that it might be decided by me. I do not think that ought to be the duty of the Lord Chancellor. I think that when he has appointed a President of the Court for a particular area, that duty should rest on the President. He will be in the area and he will get information and will be able by telegraph or telephone to arrange that the Court shall sit at a certain place with the advisers or assessors.
I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, all the more so because before he was good enough to bless the Bill, or to advise that it be given a Second Reading, he put some points of difficulty which he had been good enough to mention to me beforehand. I appreciate very fully the objection to having a Bill of only a few phrases and then padding it out with Regulations occupying pages and pages of print. If it had been a practical possibility I would far sooner have had a longer Bill which would have gone into many of these things, though I think some of them are not very suitable for detailed discussion in Parliament. But really there was no other course. The noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches ended his speech by saying he wondered whether this was not a case of the Government being in too much of a hurry. I do not think anybody can really say that this is done in too much of a hurry, because nobody knows exactly when an emergency is going to take place. If we are going to do it at all, it would be much better to get Judges appointed, procedure fixed, and all the

37
necessary arrangements made in advance. It is impossible to improvise in a matter of this sort when we are actually in the very centre of our anxiety and emergency.
My noble and learned friend Lord Atkin suggested that it might be better to enlarge the right of appeal from the case of a man sentenced to death to the case of a man who had received some long sentence of imprisonment. I quite see the force of what he said. It may be that the easy case is the case of the heavy sentence and the difficult case the one not so heavily punished. I will communicate with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, before the Regulations are settled, so that this point may be carefully considered because I see that it may have a considerable bearing on the matter.
I hope the noble Lord will not persist in dividing the House against the Bill: I should hate to find myself in a minority! His observations did not appear to me for the most part to deal with the Bill at all. He raised two distinct topics, either of which might be discussed separately. One is the question of what particular laws about crime you are going to have in the country; the other is what particular tribunals are going to try the question whether a man is guilty of a particular crime. Those two things have little or nothing to do with one another. These Courts will of course apply the criminal law of this country, whether Statute Law or Common Law; and that is the end of it. I did not quite understand whether my noble friend disliked these special Courts so much that he did not want any to be set up at all, or whether his view is that the right thing to do is to set them up all at once all over the country. I hope that we may avoid either conclusion, and arrange for them to be set up in quarters where they are necessary.
My Lords, this is an experiment. Under the difficulties of some future crisis, it may well be found not to work quite as smoothly as we thought. I do not put it forward as a scheme that can be proved to work with absolute certainty and smoothness; all I do is to put it before you on behalf of the Government as the result of a great deal of consideration by a great many people. It undoubtedly offers a possibility of securing
38
those results which I mentioned before and which Lord Cecil also mentioned. It is a Bill for protecting civilian rights in times of great crisis, and while I for one will always believe that military officers who try civilians do their very best to do justice, I still think they are not the people who ought to be called upon to do that duty. I trust the future may so unfold that it will not be necessary to put that duty upon them. If in fact it is not necessary to use this legislation in practice at all, then to the end of time it will remain uncertain whether these proposals were such as to be accepted or rejected.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will my noble friend answer my question, please?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I had every intention of doing so. The noble Lord asked a very interesting question; I remember he asked it once before, but at that moment I had not any particular material; I have now sent for some. I do not feel any doubt that the Privilege of Peers is quite unaffected by this proposal. Perhaps it may be of some interest—I trust only in the theoretic view—if I tell your Lordships what the Privilege is. A person entitled to the Privilege of Peerage, if indicted for misdemeanour, is tried in the same manner as a commoner. There is no privilege there. But persons entitled to such Privilege cannot be tried like commoners for treason, felony, or misprision of either offence, and it would seem that there is no power to waive the Privilege. Your Lordships are therefore not able, by an act of self-abnegation, to get rid of that advantage! If Parliament be sitting, the indictment is tried before the House of Lords as the Court of the King in Parliament, and if Parliament be not sitting, it is tried in the Court of the Lord High Steward, which is constituted by special Commission. The Privilege of Peerage belongs to every Peer except an Irish Peer who is a Member of the House of Commons, to Peeresses in their own right, to the wives of Peers, and to the widows of Peers who are not married to commoners; but it does not belong to Archbishops or Bishops, who are Lords of Parliament but not Peers.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I do not unduly mind being in a minority. I have been in a minority too often, and very often with the noble Viscount on the

39
Woolsack, and we were always right. But in this matter, particularly as he made such a clear statement of the law, which I trust may be now communicated to all concerned—which is one of the things I wanted—and as I gather that the noble Viscount and the Home Secretary will consult on how to deal with other difficulties which I did not want to raise in public—on that understanding, in order to avoid troubling the House with a Division, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I suggested was that, if the noble Lord felt difficulty on matters which he did not desire to raise for public discussion, it would be better for him to seek an opportunity of talking to the Home Secretary. I did not give any promise.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I did not say that there had been any promise, but I cannot withdraw my opposition to this Bill unless some such promise is given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Act to—

Urban District of Bicester;

Urban District of Clacton;

County Borough of Halifax;

Urban District of Northwich;

Rural District of Shaftesbury:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fifth Report by the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at seven minutes past six o'clock.