Sitting of 16 December 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR WESTERN PACIFIC (TRANSPORT)
  Commander Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what transport the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific has under his own direct control and immediately available to him to enable him to visit the islands which are under his supervision.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Fourteen vessels ranging in size from 35 ft. to 66 ft. are available in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate. In the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony a further three vessels are used for touring. While some of these vessels are suitable for short distance touring there is at present no vessel available suitable for long voyages by open sea. The High Commissioner has recently submitted proposals to remedy the situation and these are being considered.
  Commander Maitland: In view of the very considerable number of islands with which this high officer has to deal, their distance apart and the importance of keeping in touch with them, would it not be a good idea if he had his own small seaplane, placed under his own control, in this modern age?
  Mr. Lyttelton: That is another question which I shall be very willing to look into. The present proposal is to build a 108 ft. vessel suitable for open sea.
  Commander Maitland: In these days, how can we possibly spare the time of a High Commissioner to be at sea for days on end when he ought to be getting on with his job?
  Commander Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many islands are controlled by the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific; and what is the distance from his head quarters of the furthest island.
  Mr. Lyttelton: There are about 60 main islands and atolls and many others of lesser size or importance. The most outlying are the Line Islands some 3,000 miles from Honiara.
  Commander Maitland: Does not that answer rather strengthen my point about using a ship to travel to and from these places, which will take a very considerable time? Surely there ought to be a small seaplane placed under his own control.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I shall try to look into the matter, but there are questions of expense and other things.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    School, Mazabuka District
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the Northern Rhodesia African National Congress has been prohibited from building a school in the Mazabuka district, and chiefs and councillors have been warned that anyone who starts a school without permission is liable to punishment.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Congress has not sought permission to build a school in this district. Under the African Education Ordinance no school may be opened or maintained without the written consent of the local education authority and the proprietor must be approved by the Governor. The attention of the local chiefs and councillors and of Congress has been drawn to these provisions to guard against any unwitting contravention of them.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the inadequacy of education for the Africans in Northern Rhodesia, is it not possible to mobilise the genuine African enthusiasm for education that there is in the existing schools?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member asked me a Question about a specific instance, and I told him that no permission had been refused.

    Demonstrations, Samfya (Arrests)
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the sentences of imprisonment and corporal punishment imposed by the District Commissioner's Court at Fort Rosebery on 29th October, on 82 Africans, including juveniles.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. A demonstration against sentences imposed for offences against the Fishing Regulations took place outside the Court at Samfya on 23rd September. The following day, at a neighbouring village, a large crowd threatened and manhandled a patrol of police and district messengers. There were no injuries, and ringleaders in the disturbance were arrested. At the request of the Provincial Commissioner, police reinforcements were drafted to the area and 82 persons have since been arrested and convicted on various charges of unlawful assembly, assault, resisting the police, contempt of court and attempt to rescue. The situation has now greatly improved and the police reinforcements have been withdrawn.
    Mr. Hynd: Can the Minister say whether these objections to the Fishing Regulations were associated with the protest against Federation, as that was the allegation? Can he also say whether these punishments were meted out to individuals personally responsible for the disturbance, or were these people charged as examples to others, indiscriminately?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Neither suggestion is correct. This had nothing to do with Federation and the individuals who were sentenced were all tried in open court.

    Taxation Offences
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in Northern Rhodesia tax evasion by Africans is treated as a criminal offence, whereas non-payment of income tax by Europeans is treated as a civil offence; and whether he will now advise the Government of Northern Rhodesia to change this practice of racial discrimination.
    Mr. Lyttelton: This is a complicated subject on which I have written fully to the hon. Member The short answer is that non-payment of tax by Africans and Europeans is, in the first instance,
    358
    a civil matter and in both cases the tax is recoverable by civil action. Wilful evasion by both Europeans and Africans renders them liable to criminal proceedings, although the nature of the proceedings brought differs somewhat in the two cases.
    Mr. Rankin: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very full reply which he sent me, and which I received about an hour ago? Will he circulate that reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Will he explain the concluding sentence in the reply, in which he says that:
    "The main difference between the provisions applicable to the African and the provisions applicable to the Europeans is that if an African does not pay tax within a prescribed time there is a legal presumption under Section 14 (2) of the Native Tax Ordinance that he intends wilful evasion. This does not apply to non-payment of Income Tax."
    Does not that seem to indicate a measure of racial discrimination?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member may be assured that there is no racial discrimination either intended or actually enforced. The circumstances of the taxpayers make some differences essential, but I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman on this very tangled matter if he wishes for further information.
    Mr. Gower: Would the Secretary of State agree that there seems to be some case for saying that there should be the same practice for Europeans and coloured people in this case? I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has inherited something which is based on historical reasons, but could he make representations to the local authority for some revision of the present system?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Frankly, I do not think that that is called for at the moment because these recoveries of tax cover a very small sum. They are unsupported by income tax returns and a little difference is required in the two cases. It is not a matter of discrimination.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman agreeable to publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full reply which he has sent me?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think I could do that within the rules of the House, but I can put it in the Library if that will help hon. Members.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory result of the reply to this Question, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  KENYA

    Economical and Social Development
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in preparing and carrying out schemes to remove the fundamental causes of social and economic discontent in Kenya.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statements which I made on 28th October and 9th December.
    Mr. Hughes: Whilst appreciating the grave problems which the right hon. Gentleman has to face, may I ask him whether he does not agree that violence alone will not win a settled peace, but on the contrary will leave a trail of bitterness unless the root causes, economic and social, of these troubles in Kenya are tackled in a constructive way?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The need for economic and social progress is well realised and I have given a great number of figures to show that progress.

    Legislative Building (U.K. Gifts)
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what gift Her Majesty's Government are giving to the Kenya Legislative Council on the occasion of the opening of the new Legislative Council building in Nairobi early in the new year.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There was a proposal that a Speaker's Chair should be presented: but one had already been ordered by the Kenya Government. The House may, however, like to know that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to the opening of the new Legislative Council building are taking with them a specially bound copy of Erskine May for presentation to the Clerk of the Council: and that the foundation stone of the new building came from the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be very pleased to have this information, belated though it may be?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in this copy of Erskine May there is a special bookmark at the place which deals with the interruption of business at ten o'clock at night?
    Mr. Lyttelton: We shall have a marker put in to show the relevance of supplementary questions.

    Coffee Producers' Conferences
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been decided that representatives of the Kenya African coffee producers shall be invited to attend future coffee conferences.
    Mr. Lyttelton: A committee has been set up to consider how this may be done. The committee will tour African coffee areas in January and will then report back to the Coffee Board.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that at a meeting of the Kenya coffee growers' association, as reported in the "East African Standard" on 31st July, this was discussed and it was apparently decided that Africans should be represented by European agricultural officers, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, in view of the fact that there are 20,000 African coffee growers licensed, Africans might at least be invited to send representatives from the African coffee co-operatives to sit in at these discussions as observers until such time as they are considered capable of taking an adequate part in the proceedings?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That is one of the things which is no doubt under consideration.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what would be the estimated increase in the revenue of Kenya if income tax and surtax were levied at rates equivalent to those now levied in Great Britain.
    Mr. Lyttelton: In Kenya income tax is assessed on a sliding scale. At certain points the rate of tax rises with each £1 of chargeable income. The information sought could, therefore, not be obtained

    361
    without assessing each individual income in Kenya at U.K. rates, and I do not feel I can ask the local Administration to undertake so prodigious a calculation.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduces his Budget, has to make precisely similar calculations, precisely similar estimates? Some of them, admittedly, have proved exceedingly inaccurate, as in the case of his right hon. Friend a couple of years ago. The right hon. Gentleman gave me some specific figures a week or two ago which showed that the rate of income tax and surtax on high incomes in Kenya is about 50 or 60 per cent. less than in this country.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is entirely at sea again on this matter. Kenya income tax law is not comparable with that obtaining in this country. If the hon. Gentleman had asked me to compare the rates of tax on various levels of income I could have given him an answer. What I cannot say is how much the revenue of Kenya would rise if the United Kingdom rate of tax were applied. That would mean a calculation on every single income in the Colony.
    Mr. Hale: The specific Question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman referred to a specific income in Kenya. I asked him what was the total tax payable in income tax and surtax in Kenya. He will find the figures, as given by him to me, whether they were accurate or not, in Hansard. Therefore, these nautical similes, which come rather from the use of battleships, should not be used.
    Mr. Lytteltons: The hon. Member is now referring to things which have nothing to do with the Question which he has put on the Paper. If he had required tables comparing the tax levied as a definite payment upon income I could have given him that. What I cannot give him is what would happen to the revenue of Kenya if the United Kingdom rate of tax was applied throughout the income range because that would mean an assessment of every single tax return in Kenya.
    Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he is to lend money to Kenya without finding what contribution they can make,
    362
    I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate liabilities of married men without family in Kenya with incomes of £500, £1,000 and £5,000 a year, respectively; and what are the approximate tax liabilities of Africans with incomes of £100 a year.
    Mr. Lyttelton: £16 15s., £70 13s., and £1,566 2s., respectively. Africans pay 6s. to 23s. according to district of residence.
    Mr. Beswick: Would not the tax liabilities of Europeans in the higher income groups appear to be very small compared with those of people in this country, who, it seems, are making a substantial contribution to the expenses in Kenya?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The liability for tax in the higher income groups is about three-quarters of what it is in this country. The hon. Member should also remember the importance of attracting capital into the Colony, and that is one of the reasons.

    Murder Charge (Court-Martial)
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a charge of alleged murder by a British subject of a British subject in Kenya was tried by court-martial instead of by the civil courts; and what peace-time precedents were relied on for this decision.
    Mr. Lyttelton: As the incident occurred during the course of military operations the Kenya Attorney-General and the military authorities agreed that the case should be tried by court-martial; no specific peace-time precedent was relied on for this decision.
    Mr. Hale: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no precedent of any kind in our books of history or of law for the trial, on a charge of alleged murder by a British subject of a British subject on British territory in peace-time, taking place by court-martial?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I think the operative words are "in peace-time" The view of the legal authorities in Kenya is that these were military operations.
    Mr. Paget: Is it not a most unconstitutional practice to allow the trial by the military, on a charge of murder, of

    363
    civilians, and is it not highly regrettable and one of the very regrettable features of this case is that it was ever allowed to happen?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot agree with that.

  K.A.R. HOUSING CONDITIONS (NAIROBI)
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory housing conditions of the King's African Rifles at Langata, in Nairobi, and at Nanyuki; and what action he proposes in the matter.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. The Kenya Government are aware of the urgent need to provide new accommodation. This requirement is being considered in connection with their future plans for capital expenditure which are at present being revised.
  Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the area described these conditions as shocking and deplorable; that the Deputy Governor said it was the worst camp he had ever seen; that the Colony has contributed only £130,000, and that the Commander-in-Chief has been told it will take 16 years to make these conditions tolerable. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give the House a report of the state of progress?
  Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Member chooses to put down a Question, I will give him an answer in a short time. This matter is now being reviewed.

  Detainees
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Kikuyu are at present detained either as suspects, convicts or captured prisoners in Kenya.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Separate figures for Kikuyu are not available here, but on 24th October, 355 Africans were on remand awaiting trial, 10,497 in prisons throughout the country and 1,403 in detention camps.
  Mr. Edelman: Is not this very large number approximately half the number of those detained in prison in Great
  364
  Britain? Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement in the "Kenya Weekly News" that many of those at present detained are deteriorating both morally and mentally, and will he indicate what he proposes to do about it?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member knows very well, or should know if he does not, the measures we are taking towards rehabilitating those detained for being members of the Mau Mau. Regarding the first part of the supplementary question, no comparison should be drawn between the number of people in prison in this country and those imprisoned in the course of this civil insurrection.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Does the Minister's answer mean that 60,000 Kikuyu have been tried out of a total African population of five million.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, it does.
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Kikuyu have died in captivity since the beginning of the emergency in Kenya.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Ninety-seven.
  Mr. Edelman: Is it not a very high figure, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many thousands of Kikuyu are at present being kept in open camps with no shelter during the day, and only receiving shelter at night? Will he do something to improve their conditions?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think the figure is at all high. Most of these deaths occurred from malaria and in some cases from tuberculosis.
  Mr. Paget: Does the 97 include men wounded by Major Griffiths and subsequently shot?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think that supplementary question is particularly unfortunate in the present circumstances.

  Security Forces (Casualties)
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the number of casualties, in killed and wounded, suffered by security forces acting under his general authority in Kenya.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Up to 5th December, 213 killed and 168 wounded.

  Trial Evidence (Allegations)
  Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that it is disclosed in the verbatim transcript of the trial in Kenya of Sergeant Keats and P.O. Reubens on charges of offences against an African named Elijah, that witnesses at the trial swore on oath that the District Commissioner in charge of the inquest on Elijah had instructed them to make untrue statements for the sake of hushing the matter up, what action has been taken to investigate the truth of this evidence, what proceedings have been brought against the District Commissioner for his irregular action; and whether he will put a copy of the verbatim transcript in the Library of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I have asked the Governor for a report and will write to the hon. Member when I receive it.
  Sir R. Acland: If it be possible quickly to put a copy of this verbatim transcript into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, will he have it specially studied and, in the meantime, accept my assurance that it reveals an extraordinarily horrible state of affairs involving many high officers?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think in the present state of this case such a suggestion is a little unfortunate.

  Court-Martial Allegations (Inquiry)
  Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will hold inquiries, other than the military court of inquiry, into incidents which suggest that security forces in Kenya have exceeded their instructions and used unnecessary violence.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I understand that there are a few cases at present under investigation by the Attorney-General, Kenya, with a view to prosecution. If the results of these investigations show that such an inquiry would be desirable, I shall consider the matter in consultation with the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief. I must, however, remind the House, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, that there is an essential difference between a military court of inquiry and a civil commission of inquiry. In the latter
  366
  case no witness can be compelled to give evidence which might incriminate himself.
  Mr. Grimond: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that promise. Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, according to the terms of the military court of inquiry, it will be precluded from examining other incidents which the Secretary of State for War admits have been brought to his attention, and does not he agree that it is most essential that these other incidents, of which the case of Elijah is one, should be investigated?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think that the hon. Member has given full weight to what I have said. The reason why the terms of reference under a military court are different, is that the witnesses are protected under the Army Act against prosecution for anything they might say which might incriminate them; but that is not so in a civil inquiry.
  Mr. Grimond: I appreciate that, but is not it most necessary that these other incidents should be investigated by some form of inquiry?
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what circumstances inquests are held on deaths caused under these conditions?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Inquests are held upon the orders of the local magistrate.

  Casualties
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the official figures of Africans wounded during the emergency in Kenya include those injured by torture during screening.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot accept the implication of this Question. Any kind of ill treatment by screening teams is strictly forbidden. Out of 153,398 persons arrested up to 5th December there have been 24 cases of complaints of assault or beatings by security forces. In eight cases the allegations were not substantiated or there have been acquittals. There have been convictions in five cases, one case is before the court and 10 are still under investigation.

  Mr. Brian Hayward
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies where Mr. Brian Hayward is residing during his sentence

  367
  of three months' imprisonment; what work he is doing; and to what classes of prisoners in Kenya similar privileges are granted.
  Mr. Lyttelton: In Tanganyika prisoners serving short sentences, who elect to perform work outside the prison, have to make their own arrangements for accommodation and Mr. Hayward is living in a hotel at Morogoro. He is employed on survey work under the government surveyor. Similar privileges are not granted in Kenya.
  Mr. Edelman: Is not it the case that in addition to setting up Mr. Brian Hayward in an hotel, the Government of Kenya have also paid the fine of £100?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I have no information as to that, and the first part of the question is wholly inaccurate.
  Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what classes of prisoner in Tanganyika similar privileges are granted?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. These privileges—if they are privileges—these arrangements are in Tanganyika. It is in Kenya that they are not made.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now take steps to arrange for an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament to visit Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to inspect and report upon the prospects of gaining African co-operation in the Central African Federation.
  Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. In the view of Her Majesty's Government what is now needed is a period in which to settle down to the practical task of making Federation work—a task in which the Federal Government fully recognises its need to earn African confidence.
  Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that, in view of the results of the Federal elections yesterday, it is important that there should be the fullest understanding between this House and the Houses out there? Would not the suggestion I have made be a beneficial step in that direction?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think not at this stage. One of the features of the elections has been the great interest shown in them by Africans.

  MALAYA

    Merchant Shipping (Officers)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a qualified Malay marine officer is prevented from taking command of a vessel of more than 150 feet in length; and if he will take steps to put all men of equal qualifications on the same footing.
    Mr. Lyttelton: No such steps are necessary as the merchant shipping legislation in force in Malaya is already non-discriminatory.

    Aborigines
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what evidence he has that the aborigines of Malaya are being won over to any extent by the bandits and used on the production of food, and what research work is being undertaken in the language, social, religious and economic conditions of these jungle people with a view to counteracting this influence; and what medical aid and advice is being given them.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There is no evidence that more aborigines are being won over by the terrorists who in some remote areas are compelling them to cultivate and supply food. The Government have recently established seven jungle forts in those areas as a means to the administrative control necessary before social and other services can be developed. The forts already provide protection, medical aid, simple education and trading facilities, and these services will be extended when additional staff has been recruited for the Aborigines Department which, under an experienced anthropologist, already maintains a research station to which Aborigines are brought for short periods from all over the Federation.
    Mr. Awbery: I am much obliged to the Minister for that lengthy answer, but I should like to ask if he is aware that the aborigines have been promised the land in which they live by the Communists and that is why the Communists are winning them over? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something against that?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Member is a little wide of the mark. The aborigines are of an extremely small stature because they live in these impassable forests and seldom see the sunlight.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that these men in inaccessible places in the forest are used for sheltering the bandits and that is why the bandits want to win them over?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member has given an opinion which is not quite apposite.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the person appointed as adviser on the aborigines of Malaya was relieved of his post after being in the Federation only two weeks.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the person who was appointed on probation as Assistant Adviser on Aborigines. The High Commissioner decided that he was unsuitable for the post.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that this adviser was dismissed within a fortnight of reaching the Federation? Has another man been appointed in his place?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot answer as to whether an appointment has been made, but it is a fact that this adviser's services were dispensed with after he had had a fortnight on trial.
    Mr. Wallace: Can the Minister say whether there is a reasonable period of probation?
    Mr. Lyttelton: It is sometimes clear very early in the proceedings whether people are suitable for jobs.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what report he has received from the Falkland Islands about the extent of subversive activities in that territory.
  Mr. Lyttelton: None, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Has not the Minister been rather remiss in his duty as he has not been able to discover one case?
  Captain Ryder: Is it not a fact that this is an extremely loyal Colony of which we should be very proud?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given, but the fact that the information is negative does not mean that I have been neglecting my duties.

  NIGERIA

    Groundnuts
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total tonnage of the groundnuts crop of Nigeria; how much of this has been transported to Lagos; how much is being stored; and what is the total amount now in pyramids at Kano.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the average weekly tonnage of groundnuts now being transported by the Nigerian railways to port;

    2. what tonnage of groundnuts in Nigeria was carried over from the 1952–53 season; and at what cost in carry over charges and depreciation to the purchaser; and

    3. what tonnage of groundnuts in Nigeria is to be purchased by the Nigerian Marketing Board during the 1953–54 season; and at what price.

    Mr. Lyttelton: An average of over 7,000 tons a week has been carried to port during the last five weeks. Contrary to hopes entertained earlier this year, about 196,000 tons of the 1952–53 crop awaited transport at 31st October, 1953. The additional cost to the Nigeria Ground nut Marketing Board arising from long storage of this tonnage is put at nearly £150,000. It is estimated that 480,000 tons will be purchased at £36 a ton for export from the 1953–54 crop. Exact figures of the total crop are not available because of the unknown quantity consumed locally. By the 3rd December 236,000 tons of the 1953–54 crop had been purchased for export. Of this 7,432 tons have been railed to Lagos, Port Harcourt or Baro and some 70,000 tons are stored at Kano. The bulk of the new season's purchases, however, has yet to be carried to the railheads. The total in pyramids at Kano is about 150,000 tons; and some 240,000 tons are in store elsewhere.
    Mr. Johnson: These figures are somewhat involved. May I ask the Minister if, on his figure of 7,000 tons a week

    371
    being shifted, he can give an assurance that we shall not have a carry-over, such as we had last year, of something like 160,000 tons or more, because, as he well knows, the building of pyramids at Kano is no good to anyone? Does he think that we shall move it all after this year?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot give that assurance. There will certainly be a carry-over, but the position is improving. The crop has risen and, whereas 142,000 tons was purchased for export, in 1950–51, no less than 480,000 tons is estimated for 1953–54. This has imposed a great strain on the railway. I think the full results of the measures I have taken in this matter will be completed in 1955 when I expect the whole crop can be moved, but in 1954 I expect to carry over.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has anything been done in regard to laying down another track so that there may be two-way traffic between Kano and Lagos? This explanation has been given for years and years, but we still see the pyramids being built there.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I regret very much that efforts were wasted in trying to grow groundnuts where they would not grow and not on transporting them from where they could grow. Measures with regard to the production of rolling stock and extra rails takes a very long time. I have done my best to accelerate the matter and I think that the full result of these plans will mature in 1955.

    Variety Artiste
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mrs. V. da Costa, the British-born wife of an African-born British subject, whose occupation is a variety artiste, has been told my immigration officials at Lagos that she may perform before European but not before African audiences.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The facts are that Mrs. da Costa was first refused permission to perform at all in Nigeria, on the grounds that the act she proposed was improper, but that this ban has been withdrawn on her assurance that her act will be entirely unobjectionable.
    Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. May I remind him of the
    372
    fact that Mrs. da Costa also appears to have been misinformed, and also a friend who communicated the Question to me. We are all glad that this is over, but Mrs. da Costa appeared before the Private Secretary to the Governor and other distinguished officials, who seemed to think that the performance was very good.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member, Mrs. da Costa and I seem to be quite satisfied.

    Exchange of Customary Presents (Report)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the OFFICIAL REPORT, details of which are in his possession, issued by the Government Printer, Kaduna, North Nigeria, entitled, "Report on the Exchange of Customary Presents"; and what action he proposes in this matter.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Action on this Report is for the Northern Regional Government. I am informed that they have already set in train the preparation of draft legislation based on the recommendations in the Report.
    Mr. Johnson: Would the Minister agree that the action of the leaders of the Northern Region in this matter has been public spirited and, where there is corruption in other parts of West Africa, will he set on foot similar investigations by Legislatures in those areas?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That is quite a different question.

  BERMUDA (ORDER OF PRECEDENCE)
  Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the order of precedence in Bermuda is to be reviewed in order to include representatives of the coloured population among the early names, in view of the discussion in the Legislative Assembly on 8th December, 1953.
  Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I do not regard colour as a proper factor to be considered, one way or another, in determining precedence. I see no reason, therefore, to review the table.
  Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that at this discussion in the Legislative Assembly it was generally recognised that

  373
  a blunder had been made in excluding coloured persons from the dinner given to Her Majesty the Queen, is it not desirable to revise this order of precedence so that this offence to the coloured people may not be repeated?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman persists in calling it an offence, it was because the table of precedence was followed. Whether that was wise or not is quite another question. There was a total of only 30 people, and I do not think that the list of precedence went below about No. 16.
  Mr. Beswick: Is it usual in such a table of precedence to include people of other nationalities?
  Mr. Lyttelton: It is an international practice for visits of commanders-in-chief of other nations on the station and so forth.

  SINGAPORE (GIFT)
  Sir J. Lucasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an assurance that, in the case of the recent gift to this country of £1 million by Singapore, and in similar cases, a suitable public announcement of appreciation is made, as well as any formal letter that may be sent.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The Singapore contribution of December, 1952, was prominently reported in the United Kingdom Press at the time, and I will gladly arrange for suitable announcements to be made in the future.

  HONG KONG (PETITION)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state his reasons for refusing the petition signed by 12,000 residents in Hong Kong urging the creation of two elected unofficial seats on the Legislative Council.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am advised by the Governor that this petition does not represent public opinion generally in the Colony and that there is no general demand for constitutional change in Hong Kong at the present time.
  Mr. Rankin: Surely 12,000 residents are representative of a very large fraction of the population in Hong Kong? If we
  374
  claim that Hong Kong is the show-piece of democracy in the Far East, surely there should be some form of popular representation in the Legislative Council.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Member is a little wide of the mark here. The population of Hong Kong is now about 2¼ million, and 12,000 people have signed a petition. My information is that a large number of the people who have signed it are hawkers and others unlikely to have any real understanding of the issues involved. It has also taken a very long time to collect this number of signatures.

  TANGANYIKA (LAND SALES)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the legal judgment given in Tanganyika on 25th September declaring it to be illegal in contracts for the sale of land to stipulate that future assignments must be restricted to Europeans; what action has been taken to publicise this fact; and what complaints in respect of such stipulations have been made.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I have seen a report of the case published in the "Tanganyika Standard." According to this report the resident magistrates' court decided that a restrictive covenant of this kind in a contract for sale of land is unenforceable No official action has been taken to publicise the decision, and I am not aware of any complaints having been made.
  Mr. Sorensen: Surely there must be other cases of this kind which are perhaps unknown? Would it not therefore be a help to those in this Colony if they were aware of this so that contracts with this stipulation would not be made and contracts already made with this stipulation would be null and void?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I will look into it, but it would be difficult for me to deal with cases which are unknown.
  Mr. Sorensen: But the Minister will look into the matter?

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Electorate
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total electorate for the last election in British

    375
    Guiana; how many of those were men and women respectively; what percentage were illiterate; what is the number of local government electors; and what is the comparable percentage of those who voted in the legislative and in local government elections.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The total electorate was 208,939 of whom 49 per cent. approximately were men, and 20 per cent. approximately were illiterate. The total electorate of the 43 villages in the Colony is 12,138. In recent elections, in 30 of them, 50 per cent. voted, as compared with 73 per cent. in the last elections for the House of Assembly. These figures do not include the municipal electorate of Georgetown and New Amsterdam, which totalled 5,555.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this question of the electorate will be included as one of the questions to be discussed by the Commission going to British Guiana?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I certainly think the matter of the franchise will be discussed, and consequently no doubt the election will be one of the subjects into which they will have to inquire.

    Mrs. Jagan (Arrest)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the arrest of Mrs. Jagan.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Mrs. Jagan and nine other persons were arrested and charged under the Emergency Order with holding an illegal meeting on 13th December. They were released on bail and their case came before the magistrates yesterday; but as the matter is still sub judice, it would be undesirable for me to give further details at present.
    Miss Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that at the first possible moment he will restore the right of free public meeting in British Guiana, and will he take steps to see that he does not create the impression that there is little difference between British rule and Fascist or Communist rule?
    Mr. Lyttelton: May I say to the hon. Lady that I think her supplementary question was a little tendentious. One of our objects is to restore normal conditions in British Guiana following on
    376
    the attempts made by the P.P.P. to make it into a Communist State.
    Dr. Morgan: A disgraceful answer.

  BAHAMAS (COLOUR BAR)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the racial discrimination practised against Mr. Hugh Springer, Registrar of the University College of the West Indies, when the British Overseas Airways Corporation's Stratocruiser, Castor, developed engine trouble at Nassau, in the Bahamas; and, in particular, to his exclusion, on colour grounds, from Prince George Hotel, where the other British Overseas Airways Corporation passengers had dinner; and if he will take steps to end the practice of the colour bar in the Colony.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I was informed immediately of the incident by the Acting Governor of the Bahamas. Her Majesty's Government have always been strongly opposed to the colour bar, and I deplore the practice. I am in consultation with the Acting Governor and I hope that reasoned public opinion in the Bahamas, which I am informed is growing, will be successful in alleviating this problem.
  Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in order to avoid the humiliation of being kept out of another hotel, Mr. Springer stayed with friends that night rather than in the accommodation of the B.O.A.C.? Will he do his utmost, whatever the cost, to end this colour bar in the British Colonies?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think the hon. Member can expect me to add anything to the answer I have already given.

  MAURITIUS (BLACK RIVER ELECTIONS)
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the irregularities which occurred in the recent election in the Plaines Williams, Black River constituency of Mauritius; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am aware that the result of this election has been the subject

  377
  of a petition to the Supreme Court of Mauritius, and I am asking the Governor for a report. When it is received, I will write to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that a certain Doctor Rivailland has been unseated in the constituency referred to and that Mr. Chavdien has been put in his place, and in view of the wide feelings that there has been corruption in this election, will he consider appointing a commission to investigate?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think that in his supplementary question the hon. Member was imparting information rather than seeking it. Until I hear the result of the petition to the Supreme Court I shall have to give a negative answer.

  SIERRA LEONE (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial assistance has been given to co-operative societies in Sierra Leone; and, in particular, what loans have been advanced for the purchase of lorries.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The Sierra Leone Government have guaranteed advances of £6,318 to co-operative societies by a commercial bank. No loans have been made for the purchase of lorries.
  Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases co-operative society development is being frustrated by the lack of adequate transport, and that loans have been requested for this purpose? Will he see if anything can be done to consider favourably the applications?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I have no information on that subject. I will gladly look into the matter.

  BERMUDA CONFERENCE
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister (1) what agreement he reached at Bermuda with the President of the United States of America on the exchange of atomic information
  (2) whether he will issue a White Paper covering the decisions made and the conversations which took place at the recent
  378
  meetings at Bermuda between himself, the Prime Minister of France and the President of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): As I said yesterday, these matters will be dealt with in the foreign affairs debate tomorrow.
  Mr. Wyatt: Cannot the Prime Minister promise us something a little more than the familiar platitudes we had in the communiqué issued at the end of the Bermuda Conference? As it is likely that the right hon. Gentleman will not add very much to it tomorrow, could not he take some time during the Parliamentary Recess to produce a comprehensive document which, if written by himself, might at least be written in pleasurable English?
  The Prime Minister: While I appreciate these compliments from the hon. Member, I hope he will think about leaving me something to say in my speech tomorrow.

  ROYAL NAVY

    s. s. "Gothic"
    Mr. Benceasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cost of equipping the s. s. "Gothic" for the journey to the Antipodes; and the cost of running the ship for Her Majesty's journey, including cost of providing warships on the flight route
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): No final figure has yet been agreed with the contractors for the work recently carried out on the s. s. "Gothic" to make her ready for the Royal tour to Australia, New Zealand and Ceylon. I should, therefore, prefer to await a final settlement before giving any figures. The running costs of the vessel on this tour, together with the extra cost of Her Majesty's ships engaged on flight protection duties, are estimated at £320,000.
    Sir J. Lucas: As the Commonwealth have given us over £1,000 million in the last 14 years in money, goods and services, would not the sum mentioned be a very small amount to pay to give the people of the Commonwealth the pleasure of seeing Her Majesty?
    Mr. Thomas: I should like to add to what my hon. Friend has said that a

    379
    contribution of £200,000 to the general costs of the tour has been promised by the Government of Australia.

    Officers (Training)
    Brigadier Raynerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the review on the training of naval officers is likely to be completed and when the report on it is likely to be made available, particularly in so far as it affects the future of the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that any fundamental review of the training of naval officers must take some time. While I am unable to say when the task will be completed, I can assure the House that the need to decide the future of the Britannia Royal Naval College at the earliest possible moment is fully understood by all concerned.
    Brigadier Rayner: Has my right hon. Friend heard that the Navy is in danger of losing some first-class instructors from the Royal Naval College now, and will he do his very best to hurry up the Report?
    Mr. Thomas: Certainly I will do my very best to hurry up that section of the Report which refers to the Britannia Royal Naval College.

    Non-Industrial Staff
    Mr. Rentonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the non-industrial staff of his Department increased in number by 483 between 1st July and 1st October, 1953
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The increase of 483 included 311 staff previously classified as industrial and now re-classified as non-industrial. The balance of 172 are recruits to fill vacancies including successful candidates from a recent competition for draughtsmen.
    Mr. Renton: As the present size of the civil staff of the Admiralty is now at the large figure of 33,500, will my right hon. Friend say whether he intends to take any steps to reduce the size of this Department?
    Mr. Thomas: I have been cutting down very severely the clerical side—those who are irreverently called the "pen pushers." Many men are taken up in re-armament and by our research and development and construction departments.

    Malta (Personal Case)
    Mr. Wyattasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what representations he has received from Mr. Vincent Borg, of Malta, in regard to the debt owed to him by a naval officer of whom he has been informed, concerning which a judgment of a court of Malta has been made; and what action he proposes to take
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I have received a number of letters from Mr. Borg and the hon. Member, but I am only prepared to intervene in private matters of this nature in the most exceptional cases. I do not consider this to be a case of that kind.
    Mr. Wyatt: How can the First Lord take this view, since it was not a private matter but a judgment of a court of Malta? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there is still an outstanding payment of £159 due by Lieut. Prew to Mr. Borg for this debt; that this has caused widespread publicity in Malta and that the only reason the Minister gives for not intervening is that it is not an exceptional case when it is an exceptional case which is bringing the whole of the Royal Navy into disrepute in Malta?
    Mr. Thomas: I regret very much that the hon. Member has mentioned the name of the officer. I wish he would do it outside the House of Commons. I would point out that the British courts are open to Mr. Borg as the officer is now in this country.
    Mr. Wyatt: As the officer's name has already been given widespread publicity in Malta as a result of the judgment of the court on which he defaulted when he was posted away from Malta, and since the First Lord refuses to intervene and as I have written to the officer personally asking him to honour the debt so that the whole of this country will not be brought into disrepute in Malta, is it not now time that something was done?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member takes it upon himself to act as judge-cum-debt-collector. I wish that he would make that statement outside the privilege of the House of Commons.

    Selection Boards (Personal Cases)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons which led the interview board to decide that the marine, about whom the hon. Member for West Bromwich has written to him, had not suitable qualifications for commissioned rank in the Fleet Air Arm
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: This candidate was not accepted for a short service commission for aircrew duties because the interview board considered that he had not developed, to a sufficient degree, the qualities of leadership and responsibility which would be needed in an officer of the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were only three questions put to this marine which he was unable to answer—first, who was the author of "Peter Pan"; secondly, who stood on the bridge with Horatio; and thirdly, what was the profession of his father? Unfortunately his father was a bus driver.
    Mr. Thomas: The result was not necessarily based only on those three questions. This marine has a chance to apply for an aircrew commission after another six months.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why were these silly questions asked of this marine? Are these not ridiculous questions to ask? Surely they ought to be excluded from the questions which are put before deciding whether a marine has the right qualifications.
    Mr. Thomas: It goes far beyond the questions asked. It is the way the man answers and his general bearing.
    Captain Ryder: Is it not highly undesirable that hon. Members should use their position in this House to secure special consideration for various candidates seeking these commissions?
    Mr. Dugdale: May I say—[HON MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, may I say—[HON MEMBERS: "No."]—that I have no knowledge of this marine, that this
    382
    marine is not a friend of mine, and may I say—[HON MEMBERS: "No."]—may I ask whether it is not in order for a Member of Parliament to take an interest in the proceedings by which officers are selected for the Royal Navy? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a proper question to ask is, "What is your father's profession?" What has that to do with it at all?
    Mr. Thomas: These questions by interview boards frequently refer to the background of the boy in order to draw him out. I am sure that, like myself, the right hon. Gentleman has attended interview boards and he knows perfectly well, after the recent visit of the Press to Dartmouth, how untrue accusations of bias against interview boards have been found to be.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Can the less erudite among us be informed who was the father of Peter Pan?
    Mr. Thomas: I should like notice of that question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the Minister indicate whether the rejected candidate, had he been able to answer the question, "Who was the father of Peter Pan?" would have passed into the commissioned ranks?
    Mr. Thomas: I should think he would have passed any examination under those circumstances.
    Several Hon. Members
    Mr. Speaker: I think we have had enough of Peter Pan.
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the rank of each of the naval officers who constituted the Selection Board held on 14th April, 1953, to interview candidates for promotion to commissioned rank amongst whom was A4-D/MX923737 Artificer - engineer Popple, and also the rank of each officer who constituted the Final Selection Board which on 13th August, 1953, rejected the above named artificer-engineer
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: A captain, a captain (L), a commander and a commander (E) constituted the April Board. A commander (L), a lieutenant commander and a lieutenant commander (L) constituted the August Board.
    Mr. Williams: Is it true to say that while the senior board were much more concerned with the technical and the operational suitability of the candidates, and that they selected this officer, the other board was concerned in the main with the sporting and physical activities of the candidates and that it rejected this lad?
    Mr. Thomas: The second board was the rejecting board. If it is suggested that it was biased in any way against the boy, for reasons which I gave earlier in answer to Questions today, I would point out that the Board consisted of a special entry officer and two officers entered from the lower deck.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not true to say that this second board asked no questions at all other than questions about the physical and sporting prowess of this candidate?
    Mr. Thomas: The members would, of course, have before them the report of the first board.
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what right Artificer-engineer Popple had under the regulations to appeal against the decision of the Selection Board held on 13th August, 1953; and why he was not permitted so to do
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: There is no right of appeal from the decision of the Selection Board held on 13th August, 1953. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Williams: I am assuming that the Minister has read the case, after the correspondence which I have had with him. Is he not satisfied that another board is required to deal with this man whose attainments in all these examinations have been so high?
    Mr. Thomas: I have certainly read all the details of the case, but I cannot agree that a third board is necessary. This boy has had a very full hearing at both the first and second boards' interviews.
    Mr. Williams: In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as I can.

    Horse Show (Sea Cadets)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on whose authority a detachment of Sea Cadets attended the horse show and gymkhana organised by the East Surrey Conservative Association on Saturday, 12th September
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The six Sea Cadets who attended this horse show did so, not as a detachment, but as individual personal guests of one of the judges at the show. This gentleman has no connection with the East Surrey Conservative Association but is a member of the committee of the Caterham Sea Cadet Unit and invited these cadets to attend and assist him personally in his work.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a letter from his Private Secretary, who states that according to his information the horse show had no connection with a political party at all; and that I also have in my hand a programme headed "East Surrey Conservative Association"?
    Mr. Thomas: I have made inquiries. We were given an answer which suggests that possibly these sea cadets might not have realised that it was a political show. I would have written to the Secretary of the Labour Party concerned pointing out that we had made a mistake, as we had discovered after inquiries seeking fuller details, but as the right hon. Gentleman had put a Question down I had to wait and first give him this answer. I welcome the opportunity of being able to do so.

    Cadets (New Entry Scheme)
    Dr. Kingasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what action he proposes to take in connection with the recommendations of his Working Party's Report on Cadet Entry into Dartmouth; and whether he will submit his proposed alterations to the House for approval
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made on 25th November, 1953, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke).
    Dr. King: May I thank the Minister for the action he has taken so far and the spirit behind it and ask whether he is aware that the Montagu Report shows the same predominance in the 18-plus

    385
    entry of public school boys? Will he study the Cranwell scheme of his righthon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air before drafting the proposals which he will make for 18-plus entries?
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling my attention to that point. He may possibly be asking whether or not I propose to take the same steps as the Secretary of State for Air is taking to help boys of 16 to carry on at school until 18. That is one of the main points I am taking into consideration, having come to this new decision about Dartmouth about which I told the House the other day.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Exports
    Mr. Willeyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what factors have caused the reduced tonnage of ships built for export this year
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) on 20th May, 1953.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the recognised importance of improving our position, would the right hon. Gentleman consider meeting the representatives of the industry to see what can be done to increase the volume of our export of ships?
    Mr. Thomas: I can inform the hon. Member that I propose to go to this area early in January, when I look forward to having the conversations he has mentioned with the people concerned.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman also visit the Clyde area where the position is equally serious?
    Mr. Thomas: I visited certain parts of the Clyde area only last week-end, and I hope to be able to make a return visit to the Clyde before very long.

    Wear Shipbuilders (Admiralty Orders)
    Mr. Willeyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what orders have been placed by his Department with Wear shipbuilders
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Wear shipbuilders at present hold orders for two Admiralty tankers and three coastal minesweepers.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are much obliged to him for getting Admiralty contracts, because, as a rule, we are neglected as far as the Admiralty go? May I ask him if he will keep this matter under review so that, wherever possible, the North-East Coast can be considered along with other shipbuilding areas?
    Mr. Thomas: I will certainly keep the position under review, and that is one reason why I am going to the area next month to see the position at first hand.
    Mr. Callaghan: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered Question No. 70 relating to Cardiff?

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (THREATENED STOPPAGE OF WORK)
  Mr. Isaacs
  The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): I have had further talks with representatives of the British Transport Commission and of the unions involved, and joint discussions are today taking place between representatives of the Transport Commission and the unions. These talks will continue this afternoon, and, in the circumstances, I hope that the House will once again excuse me from making any further statement at present.
  Mr. Isaacs: Again, I think the House will respond to the right hon. Gentleman's request, because patience and sympathy are being shown in this matter, but I am bound to tell the Minister that, if there is no adjustment by tomorrow, we shall have to put supplementary questions.
  Sir W. Monckton: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House for having patience, which I hope I am myself trying to exercise in order to bring peace to all men of good will at this time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal for what purpose it is proposed to suspend the Ten o'Clock Rule tonight?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir; in order to conclude, first of all, the debate on affairs in Africa on the Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and, secondly, the adjourned debate on the Amendment on the question of television.
Mr. Attlee: The Motion relates only to Government business. Can it therefore apply to the debate on Africa?
Mr. Crookshank: That debate will conclude at Ten o'Clock—
Mr. Wyatt: Are you sure?
Mr. Crookshank: —and the Government Business will apply to the item following on Page 850 of the Order Paper.

BILL PRESENTED
Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Bill
"to restrict night work in the baking industry, and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Sir Walter Monckton; supported by Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe, Mr. J. Stuart and Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 242.

Division No. 16.]

AYES

[3.33 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Alport, C. J. M.

Cole, Norman

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Colegate, W. A.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Craddock, Bereford (Spelthorne)

Harden, J. R. E.

Arbuthnot, John

Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Crouch, R. F.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)

Hay, John

Banks, Col. C.

Davidson, Viscountess

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Barber, Anthony

Deedes, W. F.

Heath, Edward

Barlow, Sir John

Digby, S. Wingfield

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Baxter, A. B.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Donner, Sir P. W.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Drayson, G. B.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Drewe, Sir C.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hollis, M. C.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Birch, Nigel

Duthie, W. S.

Hope, Lord John

Bishop, F. P.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Black, C. W.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Boothby, Sir R. J. C.

Erroll, F. J.

Horobin, I. M.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Fell, A.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Finlay, Graeme

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fisher, Nigel

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Braine, B. R.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

Kurd, A. R.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Fort, R.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Foster, John

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Bullard, D. G.

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Jennings, R.

Burden, F. F. A.

Gammans, L. D.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Carr, Robert

Glover, D.

Kerr, H. W.

Cary, Sir Robert

Godber, J. B.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Channon, H.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Lambton, Viscount

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Gough, C. F. H.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Gower, H. R.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Leather, E. H. C.

Nutting, Anthony

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Oakshott, H. D.

Spens, Rt. Hon Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Odey, G. W.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Stevens, G. P.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

Storey, S.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Osborne, C.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Page, R. G.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Longden, Gilbert

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Studholme, H. G.

Low, A. R. W.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Summers, G. S.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Taylor Charles (Eastbourne)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Pitman, I. J.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Pitt, Mist E. M.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Powell, J. Enoch

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

McKibbin, A. J.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Tilney, John

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Raikes, Sir Victor

Touche, Sir Gordon

Maclean, Fitzroy

Rayner, Brig. R.

Turner, H. F. L.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Redmayne, M.

Turton, R. H.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Vane, W. M. F.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Renton, D. L. M.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Vosper, D. F.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Robertson, Sir David

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Robson-Brown, W.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Maude, Angus

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Maudling, R.

Roper, Sir Harold

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Watkinson, H. A.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Russell, R. S.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Mellor, Sir John

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Wellwood, W.

Molson, A. H. E.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Scott, R. Donald

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Shepherd, William

Wills, G.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Neave, Airey

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wood, Hon. R.

Nicholls, Harmar

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

York, C.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Snadden, W. McN

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Soames, Capt. C.

Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry

Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Nugent, G. R. H.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Coldrick, W.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Albu, A. H.

Collick, P. H.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Gibson, C. W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Glanville, James

Awbery, S, S.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Daines, P.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

Balfour, A.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Grey, C. F.

Bartley, P.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Bence, C. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Benson, G.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Grimond, J.

Beswick, F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Deer, G.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Blackburn, F.

Dodds, N. N.

Hamilton, W. W.

Blenkinsop, A.

Donnelly. D. L.

Hannan, W.

Blyton, W. R.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hardy, E. A.

Boardman, H.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Hargreaves, A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Bowden, H. W.

Edelman, M.

Hayman, F. H.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Brockway, A. F.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Hobson, C. R.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Holman, P.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fernyhough, E.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Fienburgh, W.

Houghton, Douglas

Callaghan, L. J.

Finch, H. J.

Hoy, J. H.

Carmichael, J.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Champion, A. J.

Follick, M.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Chapman, W. D.

Foot, M. M.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Forman, J. C.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

390

391

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Oliver, G. H.

Swingler, S. T.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Orbach, M.

Sylvester, G. O.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Oswald, T.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Janner, B.

Paget, R. T.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pannell, Charles

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Parkin, B. T

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Paton, J.

Thornton, E.

Keenan, W.

Pearson, A.

Timmons, J.

Kenyon, C.

Peart, T. F.

Tomney, F.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Turner-Samuels, M.

King, Dr. H. M.

Porter, G.

Usborne, H. C.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wade, D. W.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

Wallace, H. W.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Proctor, W. T.

Warbey, W. N.

Lindgren, G. S.

Pryde, D. J.

Watkins, T. E.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Rankin, John

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Logan, D. G.

Reeves, J.

Weitzman, D.

McGhee, H. G.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

McGovern, J.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

West, D. G.

McInnes, J.

Rhodes, H.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Richards, R.

Wheeldon, W. E.

McLeavy, F.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Mainwaring, W. H.

Ross, William

Wigg, George

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Royle, C.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Wilkins, W. A.

Manuel, A. C.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Willey, F. T.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Short, E. W.

Williams, David (Neath)

Mason, Roy

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Mayhew, C. P.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mellish, R. J.

Skeffington, A. M.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

Mikardo, Ian

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Mitchison, G. R.

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Moody, A. S.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Morley, R.

Snow, J. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Wyatt, W. L.

Mort, D. L.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Yates, V. F.

Moyle, A.

Sparks, J. A.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Mulley, F. W.

Steele, T.

Murray, J. D.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Nally, W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Mr. Popplewell and

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Oldfield, W. H.

AFFAIRS IN AFRICA
3.44 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its grave disquiet at the handling toy Her Majesty's Government of affairs in Africa.
When we express, as we do in our Motion, our grave disquiet about affairs in Africa and the handling of those affairs by Her Majesty's Government, we are convinced that we speak not only for ourselves but for a large section of the British people which feels an increasing anxiety about the position in our African Colonies. Our own people are asking with increasing anxiety when they think of Africa, "What has gone wrong? When and where is it going to end?" What are we in this House doing whilst there is still time to stop what many are coming to feel is a drift to disaster in Africa?
What we have witnessed, over the past few months in particular, is a succession of crises in our Colonies, and particularly in Africa, and with each one—and increasingly with each one—a steady deterioration in the relationship between the people in the Colonies and Her Majesty's Government. One of our weekly journals, a supporter of the Government, "The Spectator" in commenting upon the last of these crises, that in Buganda, expressed what very many and an increasing number of people in our country feel, when it said in its issue of 4th December, referring to Buganda:
"The whole episode has shown all over again how much distrust there is among Africans of the intentions of the British Government."
If there is distrust among the Africans of the Government and their intentions—and I say with conviction that there is far too much cumulative evidence of this distrust for the Government either to ignore or to rebut it—then let us face the consequences that our hope of being able to make steady progress in partnership in our Colonies towards responsible democratic self-government will be in vain, for it depends upon winning, maintaining and keeping confidence between the people in Africa and those responsible in this country for African affairs. Therefore, if there is this distrust of Her
394
Majesty's Government, it is a matter of grave concern to the country. If the Government by their mishandling have increased and deepened that distrust, the Opposition has a paramount duty to bring it to the notice of the House and of the country.
Our case against the Government is that their mishandling of African affairs at crucial periods in the past two years has had the cumulative effect of increasing and deepening this distrust until it has reached the stage where steps must be taken to halt it. Otherwise it may have calamitous consequences for them and for us. I have said "cumulative effect," for it is not one thing but a succession of episodes and crises, and it is the effect of all those added together which we are now experiencing among the people in Africa and beyond Africa.
I want very briefly to recall some of these, and I beg the House to realise as I recount them that what really matters, and what is the gravamen of our charge, is that all these added one to the other have resulted in this progressive deterioration of relationships between us, and in this increasing distrust which is fatal to all the hopes we have in Africa and elsewhere.
I begin with the early months of the life of this Government and with Central Africa over the issue of federation. We on this side of the House left office shortly after a conference had been held at Victoria Falls to discuss this project which had been a matter of discussion, and indeed of controversy, for more than a generation. What marked out that conference from previous conferences on the subject was that, for the first time, African representatives from the two Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland attended it. They not only attended but took part in it, and, at the end of that conference, we had hopes that it might be possible—that was my conviction then, and has remained my conviction—to build up in Central Africa a State which could become the pattern of a multi-racial community working in cooperation with a multi-racial democracy.
What happened then? As soon as we left office, voices from across Central Africa began to be heard in this country. The new Government were hailed by some people in Central Africa as being

395
realists compared with the previous Government. Shortly after that, the Secretary of State for the Colonies took the first wrong step, the repercussions of which are still reverberating in Africa. At the turn of the year 1951–right hon. Gentleman took the initiative of convening here in London a conference of some representatives from Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia and from Nyasaland to discuss the question of Central African federation.
The House will recall that when that fact became known, I immediately warned the Secretary of State of what the consequences would be. I said that it would create fears, suspicion and anger among Africans if once more a matter affecting their whole future welfare were discussed not only in their absence, but without even any prior consultation with them. I have sometimes been criticised in these debates by hon. Members opposite for the way in which I handled the situation. They say that we should tell the Africans what to do. I believe that this attitude is at the root of the trouble in Africa and is what is wrong with the Government's policy. Hon. Members opposite are thinking of Africa that is dead—beyond recall. But these Colonies, with the emergence of nationalism and with the education of a growing section of their people, are beyond the stage when they can be told or ordered what to do. We have reached the stage when we can only go on working together in consultation and confidence. Therefore, I say that this first step was and has remained one of the biggest factors in creating distrust in Africa.
Let us look at the repercussions, first, in Central Africa itself. The repercussions in Nyasaland are still being felt. There was trouble in Cholo some time ago, and it was clear from the evidence and the findings of the Committee set up to inquire into the position that one of the causes of the trouble was the unrest, disquiet and distrust which had been occasioned by political controversy engendered by fears concerning the way federation had been handled. The effect and consequences of that trouble may go on for a very long time.
Questions have been asked in this House concerning the almost un-
396
precedented example of the official Administration in Nyasaland spending public money on advertisements in newspapers in which it sought to denigrate and undermine the African Congress in Nyasaland, an organisation which the Africans have created for themselves. That one consequence may appear to be a very small thing, but we should realise that these political organisations can be the beginnings of political democracy. If we treat them in this way, it may have consequences which we have seen elsewhere, resulting from frustration, anger, and all the rest of it, which will turn the Africans against us and drive them to look elsewhere than to this country for inspiration. Such actions as that produce distrust. How long will this state of affairs exist in Nyasaland? Who knows? But there it is, and it began with the Secretary of State's mishandling of the situation.
There are some disturbing signs in Northern Rhodesia to which I want to call the attention of the House. When federation had been accepted by this House, my right hon. Friend indicated that we on this side would seek to make it work. He said that in the spirit of the pledges which had been given when federation was finally accepted. During the past few weeks, however, we have seen signs that the promises made concerning a progressive and developing racial partnership are being forgotten and repudiated.
I shall deal with one of the pledges, because it is of vital importance. It emerged from the 1951 Victoria Falls Conference, was accepted by the present Government, and was included in the preamble to the scheme which was finally embodied in an Order in Council. The pledge was that the political advancement of Africans within the local and Territorial Governments shall be the prerogative of Her Majesty's Government and of the Governments in the Territories without the Federal Government having the right to intervene in the political development of the people in those areas.
There were other pledges, too, to the effect that the Protectorate status shall be sustained and that the existing safeguards in regard to land tenure shall be retained. In the course of the discussion on the Bill to enable Central African federation

397
to come into being, we sought to write those safeguards into the Bill. I think that we were right to do that, but by a majority the Government and the House turned down our proposal. They said it was unnecessary, that we could trust our kith and kin and the pledges which had been given. Therefore, those pledges were not written into the Bill and are not an integral part of the Constitution. They are in the Preamble.
I say that there are now disturbing signs that in Central Africa attempts are being made to ensure that the federal Government and the federal Parliament may be able to influence the future political development of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia. I want to quote from a statement made quite recently by one of the responsible leaders in Central Africa, one who is spoken of as a future Prime Minister of the federal Government—Sir Roy Welensky. On 10th December he made a statement, reported in "The Times" of 11th December, commenting upon a statement made by the Secretary of State regarding his impending visit to Northern Rhodesia, and about the discussions which took place quite recently on the changes which he decided he would make in the political constitution of the Legislature in Northern Rhodesia. Sir Roy Welensky used these words:
"The assurance by the Secretary of State that there would be no change in the Northern Rhodesian franchise for the period of life of the first federal Parliament in Central Africa meant, in effect, that there would be no changes for five years. At the end of that time, he added, the Central African federal State would be firmly established and it could confidently be assumed that no "reckless experiments" would take place on constitutional matters in Northern Rhodesia after the five-year period without full consultation with the federal Government."
One of the pledges which we all accepted was that the political advancement of the Africans in the territorial sphere of Northern Rhodesia would be a matter entirely for Her Majesty's Government and for the Government and people of Northern Rhodesia. What we clearly see here is an attempt now to stake a claim, and to get behind that pledge. One can imagine an African who has now accepted and worked for federation reading this statement and saying, "Another pledge is on the way out; another undertaking is already being modified and may, in the end, be destroyed."
398
Statements such as I have quoted and others of a like character create distrust. My charge against the Secretary of State is that, whilst such statements were and are still being made, there comes no repudiation from this country. I say that when statements of this kind are made in Central Africa, the Secretary of State and the Government have a duty to say, "We stand by our pledges," and to repudiate all these statements made by others, lest this distrust becomes a deepening distrust of Her Majesty's Government and of their intentions for that country.
In the course of elections in Northern Rhodesia we have recently seen announcements made to the effect that the Dalgleish Report is dead. Mr. Lange, one of the members of the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council, in the course of the federal elections, boasted that he and his colleagues had been able to prevent the application and operation of that Report and pledged himself to go on doing so. One of the things which created at any rate hope that some of the pledges would be carried out, and of which the Colonial Secretary spoke when we last discussed Central African federation, was that one group of employers had taken steps to discuss and implement the Dalgleish Report. Now these statements are being made that all these attempts have been, and will be, stopped, but still we do not get anything from either the Secretary of State or the Government to the effect that their pledge still stands and that they are determined to find ways of implementing it.
My conviction still is that the best way of doing this is by voluntary agreement, but how can we hope to get even the beginning of discussion and voluntary agreement as things are? I have sought through the membership in my own union, which is also a miners' union, to bring the two African unions into contact with mine in order to try to promote friendly feeling and a settlement of this matter, but all that will go in vain if such things as these go on.
I say definitely and without hesitation that, from the very beginning, the handling of Central African federation by the Secretary of State and by the Government, and the subsequent events and statements to which I have referred, taken together, have had a very big effect upon the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and

399
in Nyasaland, and in combination have created this distrust of Her Majesty's Government and their intentions which is the gravamen of the charge we make.
It is not only in Central Africa that the repercussions have been felt. They have been felt all over Africa, and I turn now to East Africa, because in recent events in Buganda we have had a reflection of the distrust and the fears that have been occasioned by the way in which Central African federation was handled and the way in which it was regarded by the Africans. To give the background of recent events in Buganda, perhaps I may be permitted to read a number of quotations from "The East African Standard, "a newspaper which is read out there by an increasing number of educated Africans who can read English. The articles take on the pattern and shape of the very kind of mishandling and misuse which, at the end of 1951 and the beginning of 1952, created and deepened the distrust which is still there, and which continues.
The first is a report, on 10th June, 1953, that there had been talks in London between Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Michael Blundell, and Mr. Blundell was quoted as having said at the end of those talks:
"I discussed with him problems of Central African Federation, how it was proposed to get it going, and methods of bringing into line the interests of the East and Central African Territories. We talked about services common to all Territories with the object of nourishing closer association."
That sounds quite innocent, but not to African ears. Indeed, it sounds, sinister to African ears because of the fears that have been already aroused and deepened by what had happened before.
It is in that atmosphere that we come to one of our charges against the Secretary of State, which is that following that report of 10th June, there very quickly appeared, on 3rd July, 1953, in the same newspaper, a heading right across the front page,
"Great New Dominion Foreseen."
This is "The East African Standard's" interpretation of the speech of the Secretary of State; it might and could have been repudiated immediately, but so far as I know was not so repudiated:
"The British Government is believed to be planning a federation of Central and East
400
Africa as a great new British Dominion…This is understood to have been behind the statement of the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Lyttelton, on possible federation moves of the future when he spoke at an East African Dinner Club in London The first step towards the Government's aim will be, it is understood, to step up moves towards federation in the three East African Territories."
We know what the reactions were to those statements in the atmosphere engendered at the end of the summer, when Central African federation came into operation in the circumstances which I have described.
"The Times," on 21st November, in an article—the first account that I read—indicated that trouble was brewing in Uganda, and it gave a description of the background, of the atmosphere of watchfulness, fear and anxiety created by the speech of the Secretary of State. In that article was a phrase which, I think, sums up our charge against Her Majesty's Government. Having described the atmosphere, it said of this speech and its effect upon East Africa
"A match had been dropped, and it fell among tinder."
Who dropped the match? Africa today is tinder. There is mistrust, fear and anxiety, and I say that a Secretary of State who drops matches into that tinder is a person about whom we have every right to be anxious.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I thought the right hon. Gentleman would probably make this point, so I telegraphed to the Governor of Uganda and I have his authority to say once again that nothing concerning the recent crisis arose as a result of that speech.
Mr. Griffiths: The House has heard me say on more than one occasion that I have the deepest respect for the Governor of Uganda. Let us look at the sequence of events. If that speech had no effect upon the situation, why did the Governor at once fly home to see the Secretary of State? If it was not the speech, what else was it? Of course, it was the speech, and it has been clear from the very beginning that it was that speech which was the match that set light to the tinder.
Mr. John Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman repudiating what the Governor has said?
Mr. Griffiths: No, I am not repudiating it. I am, indeed, deeply sorry that the Governor should be in a position of having to face this crisis which was caused by the speech of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I appreciate that that metaphor of the match being dropped in the tinder is not appreciated by hon. Members opposite, but I shall make my speech in my own way. I am an old collier, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he had dropped a match in the pit he would have ceased to work in the pit, and his fellow workmen would have refused to work with him. The Secretary of State, perhaps unintentionally, committed an indiscretion of this kind which has had repercussions in Buganda the end of which we do not know.
Mr. Frederick Gough Mr. Frederick Gough (Horsham) rose—
Mr. Griffiths: No, I cannot give way now. This is a charge which we are entitled to bring and which the nation expects us to bring against the Secretary of State.
Let me now come to another aspect. So often in these debates when we have sought to make suggestions which we believed sincerely could help to solve the difficulties confronting us, the Secretary of State has at once rebuffed us. The right hon. Gentleman may think that such occasions are few, but in fact they are many. Let me give two recent examples. One occurred in the debate on British Guiana. In that debate, while I was speaking, the right hon. Gentleman got up and shouted across the Table, "I demand an answer now." I said then and I repeat now—this is one of the things about which we and the nation are concerned—that we think the right hon. Gentleman exhibits a temperament which is not suitable in a man who has to do this great human job of work.
The other occasion was when we discussed Buganda. Earlier that day I had had discussions with the Kabaka. He had asked me if I would see him. I said that I would not see him until he had seen the Secretary of State, which I thought was the right thing to do. I said to him, "I shall be glad to see you afterwards." I saw him afterwards and I found that he was anxious for a settlement. I left
402
him in no doubt—a colleague of mine in this House was with me—that I thought his proposals were not in the best interests of his country, and I still think so. I told him that I did not think my hon. Friends would support him in those proposals. I decided that I would tell the House what his fears were.
We had decided that it was our duty to bring this Motion before the House, but we did not want to do so at a time when there was a chance of a settlement. On my own responsibility, without discussing the matter with my colleagues, I decided to tell the House that I was deeply anxious for a settlement, as we still are, and that if there was a chance of a settlement I would take the responsibility of advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the Motion off the Order Paper lest it should prejudice the chance of a settlement.
What happened when I made that suggestion? Before I could speak a sentence, the Secretary of State was on his feet shouting. In spite of that, with a real anxiety for a settlement, I said that I would still so advise my hon. Friends, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman not to say "No." I said, "Do not give a final answer. Keep the door open." We were seeking to promote a settlement, and I made that suggestion honestly and sincerely in a desire to save Buganda—which had so far been saved from so many of the troubles in Africa—from what I feared might become a serious situation which would remain for a very long time. After I made the suggestion, the Minister got up and slammed the door.
Mr. Gough Mr. Gough rose—
Mr. Griffiths: No, I cannot give way now.
Mr. Gough: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me, in the interests—
Mr. Griffiths: No.
Now I come to one other example. I come to an example in which the Secretary of State has had a success. I refer to the problem of Nigeria. I know how difficult is the problem of Nigeria and how thorny the problem of Lagos is. There was a conference in London, and in the end they failed to agree about Lagos. A dispute had arisen, and the Secretary of State was asked to give a

403
decision. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the dispute. I only say what the Action Group said. The conference agreed that the Secretary of State should decide upon the future status of Lagos, and the Action Group—which includes Ministers of the western region, together with the man who is virtually their Prime Minister, Mr. Awolowo—left the conference under the impression that he would decide between four alternative proposals concerning the future of Lagos which they had put forward. That may be right or it may be wrong. I do not know. They say that the Secretary of State then made a decision which went outside those four alternatives within which and from which they thought he would make his decision.
Their people are incensed about this. I know that this problem is a very difficult one, and I am not minimising it, but one consideration which we have to bear in mind is that the future of Lagos cannot be dissociated from the feelings of some of the local people. Their feelings have been expressed in the recent municipal elections. They sent, through Mr. Awolowo, a telegram which was phrased in intemperate language and which contained wild words. They very often use wild words. This is one of the problems that we have to recognise. Very often they use words which mean something different to them from what they do to us.
That telegram was sent, and a reply was sent by the Secretary of State. It was not sent directly, nor through the Government, but through another official. This may seem a small matter, but I have always held the view that it is one of the duties of a Secretary of State, in building up these democratic Governments, to seek also to build up the prestige of these democratic Ministers. This is of enormous importance in building up a sound democracy, and to send a reply to a responsible Minister through an official was in itself to hurt and bring down that Minister's prestige.
More than that, comments have been made upon this telegram. The "Commonwealth," a responsible journal, which has a great circulation and which supports the Government—too often, I sometimes think—had to say that the Secretary of State could have acted with more tact and with equal firmness. That
404
was another case of mishandling a situation. Where will that end? Lagos is back in the melting pot. The issue as to its future may now be coloured, conditioned, affected and even poisoned by a telegram which could have been—to quote the words used by the "Commonwealth"—"put with more tact."
Now let me turn to Kenya and its tragedy. We have been confronted there—we still are—with a reversion to barbarism in the form of Mau Mau. We have supported action to put down terrorism, and action wherever violence has arisen. I said the same thing about British Guiana. When the Secretary of State issued a challenge to me, I did not hesitate to answer what I thought should be the action by a responsible Minister, and what would by my action.
The House and the nation have been profoundly disturbed by recent events. An inquiry is taking place, and we shall await its results, but there are still other things to be inquired into. A delegation is leaving from the House of Commons. Months ago I pleaded that a delegation should go to Kenya from the House of Commons. I suggested it because I thought that it was desirable and would be to the advantage of the House and the nation. My right hon. and learned Friend, with all his knowledge and experience as a distinguished member of the legal profession, will speak later on some aspects of this matter. It is important that we should have reports from this delegation because of the disquiet which is felt so widely among all sections of the nation in view of recent events. This trouble has now been going on for over a year.
I want to direct the attention of the House to a most important statement on Kenya, made in Nairobi by General Erskine. In my view, it reflects, in the long term, one of the most serious failings of the Government in regard to the Kenya situation. On 21st October, General Erskine, when making a survey at the end of the first year of the emergency, was reported in British newspapers as having said that he thought the terrorist situation looked much better. But he added that there was no military answer to Kenya's troubles. He said that it was a political problem, the problem of
"how Europeans, Africans, and Asians can live in harmony on a long-term basis."

405
He added:
"If the people of Kenya could address themselves to this problem and find a solution they would have achieved far more than I could do with security forces."
Let me recall certain suggestions and pleas which we have made to the Secretary of State over the last 12 months, most of which he has rejected from the very outset. There is one danger which we have not yet been able to avoid. In this situation, to avoid making this question become, or appearing to become, a struggle between black and white, we said that it was important that we should make representatives of the large mass of Africans who are not in Mau Mau, men who are opposed to it, who have suffered from it and have paid for it with their lives—men whom I have been privileged to meet and know—members of the Executive Council, representing the Africans, or members of the Legislative Council, in order to build up an alternative leadership. I pleaded that they should have the opportunity of speaking to their constituents and playing their full part in the affairs of the Colony.
Some time ago the Secretary of State announced that an Emergency Committee was to be set up to advise the Governor. When the announcement was made we discovered that it was proposed to put in as an unofficial member—somebody who was not in the employ of the Government—one of the Europeans. I urged the Secretary of State to include in that Committee members of the other communities, and to put in an African and an Asian. I pleaded with him to make this Committee and everything we do in Kenya representative of all the communities for, as General Erskine said, if we are to solve this problem we shall not do it by having one race or community taking part in its solution. It can be solved only by bringing in together all races and communities and making all the committees, and everything else, symbolic of the unity without which there can be no hope for the future of Kenya.
The Kenya Africa Union was proscribed. When the Kenya Africa Union was proscribed, we again urged the Secretary of State to encourage the Africans to build a political organisation. There is now a danger of a political vacuum, without a leadership that has contact with its people, who are kept at
406
arm's length. I say that this is a dangerous vacuum for which we may pay a very heavy price long after this emergency is over.
We say that the political handling of this problem by the Secretary of State and by the Government is another example of their mishandling of the situation. I read papers that are produced, some of them by Africans, and I receive letters from friends who read the papers published in the vernacular. It is clear from these that we have failed so far to convince the people in Africa, in Kenya and in other Territories in Africa, that the struggle against Mau Mau is a struggle against terror.
There is a widespread belief, which adds to the mistrust, that it is a struggle between white and black. The political handling of the situation in Kenya as I have described it, which we have raised in this House so often, is partly responsible for that, because Asians and Africans are being kept outside. The Secretary of State knows, too, that both communities, particularly the Asian community, were deeply hurt by the implication of their non-appointment to the Emergency Council that they could not be trusted to co-operate with the Government.
There is in Kenya, as indeed elsewhere in these multi-racial communities, a problem. My major charge against the Government is that, with all these incidents and their cumulative effects, we are now faced with a great human problem. To these multi-racial communities we have taken our civilisation and our standards of life, and the Africans have been shut out and made to feel strangers in their own land. This is a problem far greater than the problem of capital investment and capital development, far greater than the problem of raising the standards of life, vital as those two are; far greater and far deeper than the provision of education and the other social services.
It is the problem of how to bring these people fully into our society, to integrate them, to open doors to opportunities—not to leave them, as they are now, two nations, often three nations, often more. This is the problem that I am convinced the Government have mishandled, as

407
shown by the incidents of the past two years. It is a fundamental human problem, and unless we solve it there can be no basis for future prosperity in the Colonies.
I have no doubt that in this debate hon. Members opposite will look at the six years' record of the Labour Government. They will point out sins of omission and commission. That is all right in a debate, but I ask them, at the end of it all. to answer this question: Would they not like to go back to the Africa of 1951? There was trust, there was confidence, there was mutual relationship. [HON MEMBERS: "There are."] Now what do we see? What is the biggest effect of all these things? It is to create the impression, which is there, which is part of this deep mistrust, that the British Government stand more for the whites than for the blacks. It is a very simple feeling, but it is very deep and very profound, and no one who speaks with Africans can miss the point that that is the essential thing, that that is the opinion that is held; that the atmosphere, that the approach, has changed.
When we look at the African scene today what do we see? We see this rising tide of nationalism among the African people. We see white racialism in the south, spreading beyond the Limpopo to the north and to the east. Fortunately, so far it has been held at bay, but it is there. Those who know Africa best—I know so many of them—tell me that this is the kind of problem which fills them with foreboding for the future, and the apprehension that these two great nationalistic forces, which are growing, may clash.
There is federation in Central Africa which Africans regard—and we have to face the fact whether we like it or not—as a white federation. There is talk of federation in East Africa. I hope that hon. Members noticed the significance of what happened in West Africa the other day. They, too, are coming together, perhaps beyond the confines of British Africa, to form their own West African federation. I remember when I was in Nigeria in the early part of the year speaking to a young man who was trained here, who had gone back and was
408
working there. I was talking to him about the day when his people would become independent. One of the advantages, he thought, would be that his country, his nation, would be a member of the United Nations, because they were anxious as a people, as a nation, to play their part in foreign affairs. When I asked him, "What foreign affairs are you thinking of?" he said, "To us foreign affairs is what happens to our people in other parts of Africa."
These two nationalistic forces are growing. If they clash, it will be the end of the British Commonwealth. I say to the Prime Minister that this is what will liquidate this Empire. We need to reaffirm to all the African peoples, wherever they are, that we are determined to build a nation in which their own people will have the opportunity as human beings progressively to develop and to become full partners, with a place, for their own nation, in this British Commonwealth of Nations.
The time has come—indeed, it is overdue—for a new approach, for a new leadership before this incipient conflict one day becomes more serious than any we have ever faced. We have had Commonwealth Conferences. We welcome them as helping to solve all kinds of problems. Here is a problem which vitally concerns this Commonwealth. We have to live now in a changed Commonwealth. My right hon. Friends changed so much of it in the early days of the Labour Government We have a Commonwealth in which people of other coloured skins outnumber those of us who are white, and who watch with care what happens elsewhere in this new Commonwealth of ours. In facing all these problems, there is need for a new leadership and a new approach.
Looking back over these last two years, with all these incidents, with all the Government's mishandling, and with the mistrust among the Africans, I say that these things can never be attained or hoped for if the African people distrust the British Government. They distrust this Government, and it is because that distrust is there and is deepening that I have moved, I believe with the assent of the vast majority of this nation, this Motion.
4.40 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr, Oliver Lyttelton): I deplore some of the strident tones which have been employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on some of these subjects. I shall endeavour to look at these matters in the most objective way that I can, because I believe that the problem and challenge of Africa far transcend any political or, indeed, personal quarrel which might engage the House this afternoon.
Today, the House has the opportunity of appraising Britain's achievements in that Continent, particularly in the last two years, to which the Motion refers. Whatever variations there may be on the main theme, all parties in the House follow a common aim and an essential continuity, which is the advance of the peoples of Africa, all her peoples, towards self-government. But this is a time of challenge—the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that—and in a time of challenge the path is not always smooth.
It is not only we here who are challenged by these events. The African is also challenged by the technical progress, the culture and learning of the West. It is a double challenge, and I believe that is why Africa is stirring. None of the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to adduce gets anywhere near the root cause. I shall try to give the reasons.
We know some of the reasons. First of all, there is the history of detribalisation and of political advance. So far, the Continent of Africa has made little contribution to the civilisation, art, letters or enlightenment of mankind. Where it has it has been generally under the influence of more ancient civilisations, of the Phoenicians or Romans along the Mediterranean littoral; of the Arabs in the north and west, or of the Nilotics.
What has happened? What are the fundamental causes? It is because into this continent has suddenly been projected news, news of a world a short time ago unknown to any Africans, and still unknown to many. In the last decade this impact has developed new force. For example, Africans volunteered in large numbers in the war against Hitler. Hundreds of thousands of them fought side by side with the British.
Mr. Harold Davies: Let us remember that.
Mr. Lyttelton: I am recalling to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davies: Recalling it does not mean a thing.
Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps it does not mean a thing to the right hon. Gentleman.
From huts and kraals the Africans travelled thousands of miles and saw a new world. There is now an ever-growing stream of students from Africa absorbing Western ideas at our universities and technical colleges. The universities in Africa, which are growing up largely with the help of Great Britain, open new windows alike on ancient and modern civilisations. I remember going through the library at Achimota one day. I saw a tall young student, I think an Ashanti, bending over a volume. I found out afterwards that it was a translation of a volume of Guy de Maupassant.
Newspapers representing all shades of political opinion from the extreme Right to the extreme Left arrive in Mombasa or Nairobi, in Ndola or Lusaka, in Kano or Lagos or Enugu, in Accra or Freetown, with their different and discordant voices. Is it to be wondered at that Africa is stirring?
Then there are the marvels of modern science. African visitors went recently to the air display at Farnborough. They saw bat-like aircraft break through the sonic barrier.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the atom bomb?
Mr. Lyttelton: The Comet, like the portents of the old astrologers, whistles at 40,000 feet over the primeval forests and savannah of Africa. Is it any wonder that Africa is stirring? The aeroplane brings into these countries men of every shade of opinion, of all kinds of skills, trades and professions. The aeroplane decants me one day in Nairobi and the next day the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and also "The Times" correspondent one day and Mr. Kingsley Martin another. The saucepan radios in many African villages catch up new voices. All these voices have a message, one of hope or despair, to the Africans who hear them.

411
Africans as a whole—I shall show that the term "African" as used in almost every sentence by the right hon. Gentleman is an inapposite and inaccurate piece of terminology—cannot always chart these cross-currents. Often we cannot chart them ourselves. The Africans cannot make a common theme out of the discordant voices, nor can they unravel the tangled skein of our Western civilisation. All they know is that they are:
"…moving about in worlds unrealised."
as the poet had it.
But one thing they see clearly, if they can only grasp the lesson. If they snatch from all this the elixir, the talisman, the key—call it what we may—to the modern world, then there is no reason why the same civilisation, with the same material benefits, which they so admire should not be theirs. Is it a wonder that Africa is stirring?
These are the real reasons—not the trumpery ones which have been put before the House this afternoon—for the troubles which we experience today. They are the convulsions which always accompany the great changes which take place in the history of nations and of their relative power and culture.
The ethnographical pattern is so diverse and so complicated that only those with a lifetime of study behind them could give a reliable picture. In West Africa, we find negroes who speak the Sudanic languages. In Central and East Africa we find those who speak the Bantu languages, and these form about two-thirds of the whole of the population of Africa south of the Sahara.
From the North and North-East, there descended upon the negroes successive waves of pastoral Hamites, the sons of Ham, the dwellers in tents. They have intermarried to produce the half-Hamites, of which the Masai and the Baganda are typical. In many cases the differences between the so-called African peoples themselves are as pronounced as the differences between Africans and Europeans. Thus we are likely to get the picture distorted if we use the term "African" as an overcoat term applying to them all.
So the news of worlds unrealised has made its impact not only upon Africa; it has made its impact upon men of widely different races and widely different
412
antecedents. I repeat that these are the true reasons which have led in the main to many of the troubles with which our predecessors, including the right hon. Gentleman, have to deal and with which I have to deal. Let us hope that we may be able to hand on to our successors a firmer foundation upon which to build.
Amidst this tumult of ideas and this confusion of voices, there must be one message sent from this country to Africa. Above all the noise of faction or disagreement on detail or approach to be heard in this House from time to time, the message must continue to proclaim to the African people those aims of policy and humanity which, I still believe, are shared in common between all parties and which represent the voice of Britain. Conservative, Liberal and Labour all believe in giving an ever-increasing share in the management of their own affairs to all these peoples. There is no argument about that. The argument begins about the methods used, the pace, the tempo at which it is done.
The corner-stones in all this must be law and order, economic progress and political advance, and I shall say something about that in a moment. But our responsibilities do not end there, not yet at least. They do not end with the handing out of Constitutions. They extend to making these Constitutions take root and grow. They extend to ensuring that, during the birth pangs of the Constitution, law and order and freedom for the law-abiding are preserved.
In a broadcast to which I shall refer later in passing, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"In the short time I have been Colonial Secretary, 12 Colonies have had new Constitutions."
But that is not the monument of policy nor the touchstone of success. Anyone can hand out a Constitution. But will it work? Is it a framework within which democratic institutions can grow, or is it a source of strife and friction? Is it too slow to satisfy the progressive, or too quick to fulfil the needs of law and order?
Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Lyttelton: I wish that the hon. Member would allow me to make my speech.

413
All the same, when it comes to arithmetic—which it should not—11 major constitutional advances have been made during the last two years.
Before I come to some of the troubled Colonies, I wish to emphasise to hon. Members again that, in looking at all these matters, they will find that much falls into its place when we fasten on to the simple proposition that law and order, economic progress and political advance are all interdependent, and we cannot move successfully on one front without the other two. But we cannot make Constitutions unless the knowledge and ability to work them have been previously implanted, and there is sufficient will and ability in those concerned to work together.
Mr. Harold Davies: I apologise for interrupting, but the point which I wanted to make was this. Was not the right hon. Gentleman seeming to imply, when my right hon. Friend said that 12 Constitutions had been established, that Constitutions could be established on paper? Are not all the Constitutions, even the British, rather pragmatic things, and we demonstrate that we believe in freedom from contempt for these people?
Mr. Lyttelton: I am surprised that the hon. Member should have reached such an advanced stage of life before discovering something blatantly obvious to every student. I should have thought that every hon. Member would know that when we talk of a Constitution we mean something generally on paper and that there are things not on paper in a Constitution. I thought that the hon. Member was going to interrupt me on a more important point.
I want to refer to some of these troubled Colonies, and also to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me begin with Central African federation. If ever there was a subject upon which one would have thought that an approach could have been possible on non-party lines, outside party consideration, it was surely this. The revival of the idea of Central African federation—and it was an old one—was not a project of this Government, it was the project of the last Government.
The federation scheme, although in our opinion—I am not trying to be controversial—it contained a number of defects, which have since been remedied,
414
was not our scheme; it was the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. They it was who set in motion this mighty force which, properly handled, might have led to federation in far happier circumstances than, in fact, actually surrounded its birth. It will be within the recollection of the House that every Parliamentary occasion was used to try to delay and prevent the coming into force of the federation instruments.
The grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman conducted this campaign and the 12 debates which took place upon it, was that it was being imposed when African opinion, where it was vocal, was against it. But, unfortunately, the rôle of the Colonial Secretary and of Her Majesty's Government cannot always be to halt a scheme admitted by both sides of the House to be beneficial to the future of Africans and to the development of their political institutions because a vocal section of the community is against it. Such opinions, of course, must be taken into account, must be weighed, their interests must be safeguarded, and, on occasions, a scheme must be abandoned because the safeguards cannot be provided. But when we are satisfied that they can, then it is an abrogation of all the principles and responsibility of Government to be turned aside by the clatter and clamour of a few interested parties.
I awaited the day when federation became a fact, I admit it, with apprehension. Such a stream of propaganda had flowed out from this country, some of it from the very authors of the scheme itself, that African opinion had become far more inflamed than it should have been. We might easily have witnessed—and I weigh these words carefully—a victory for the extremists on the one side or the other. But, fortunately, wisdom won.
I turn aside from the general course of my argument to return to another matter, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer. I expected that he would. He seemed to rake round for everything he could find, but he missed this one. My treatment of the Nyasaland chiefs has often been referred to as being very unsympathetic. It might interest the House to know what some of the proposals in the memorandum put forward by the chiefs contained at the time. I have it here. They asked this: Replacement of high officials by new ones. The Governor

415
to be replaced. The Chief Secretary to be replaced. The Secretary for African Affairs to be replaced. The Provincial Commissioners to be replaced. I said that these demands should not be taken seriously, and I dismissed them, as any Colonial Secretary should, quite summarily, but I listened with the greatest patience and courtesy to everything they had to say, and the one subject which I felt it necessary to dismiss summarily was falsely represented to be the tone in which I conducted the negotiations. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, Nyasaland today is peaceful. I have a telegram here from the Governor which I received only last night. It says:
"African co-operation is now normal. Considerable interest is being shown in the election of African Members to the Federal Assembly with 13 candidates for two seats. Position is settling down very satisfactorily."
I got that last night. May Nyasaland long remain peaceful; it will soon begin to reap the benefits of federation.
There are constitutional troubles in Northern Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman referred to that. They have happily been resolved and I can sum them up in a few sentences. The elected Members—our own fellow countrymen—thought that the concessions given to Africans and to African representation were too great. But during the whole controversy concerning federation we spoke of the goal of partnership, and we spoke of it sincerely, as did the elected Members. I felt, and I still feel, that the increase of African representation was the least we could do to show that our protestations were not mere words. Does the House think that this Constitution was mishandled or that some other form of accommodation ought to have been reached? I wonder.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who I see in his place, said:
"May the right hon. Gentleman's colonial policy be summarised in this way: that he obtains equity by offending everybody sufficiently? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 606.]
The answer, of course—and I give it with some diffidence—is that I am prepared to risk a clash of opinion with my fellow countrymen in a cause which I think just. It is very easy to gain popularity from one side by favouring it at the expense of the other.
416
I leave the subject of Central African federation with one last remark. Central African federation was approved by this House. The majority in the critical debate was 46. The party to which I belong commands ordinarily a majority of 18. I therefore think it infelicitous, in view of those figures, that the discussion on a Motion of censure should include references to Central African federation. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will have seen the results of the elections to the federation and watched their progress with great interest. It is not for us to pretend to any party politics here, but I hope the result will, at any rate, be seen in this light: that the party which has been elected with an overwhelming majority is the one pledged to the principle of partnership between the races—and I suppose it will be said that that is another mishandling!
I now turn to Kenya—
Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister say something about the pledge we gave on the subject of political advance in territorial government?
Mr. Lyttelton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The responsibility for constitutional changes in the Northern Territories rests with Her Majesty's Government alone, and I am glad to have the opportunity of repeating that.
I was proposing to turn to the subject of Kenya. If hon. Members opposite really believe that Mau Mau started at about the time of the General Election they are very wide of the mark. This canker had, in fact, become deep-rooted and had been festering below the surface long before the General Election. It had remained either undetected or ignored. The reports—and I admit it freely—which I received when the first horrible outrages came to light, were quite wrong. They arose, no doubt, from faulty intelligence. It takes years to build a sound system of intelligence, but it was not there.
The Mau Mau was a secret society which sucked its poison from witchcraft, from a hatred of the white man, from a hatred of Christianity, and it gained its force by unleashing a primeval savagery. Does anyone suggest that adjustments and balances on the political front could have stamped out Mau Mau? I think not. The sooner some hon. Members—and I repeat some—learn that you cannot fight

417
pangas and bullets and witchcraft only with Motions on the Adjournment, or even Motions of censure—
Mr. Maurice Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentle man—
Mr. Lyttelton: —the sooner the light of reality will begin to play on these dark places.
I say, with every force that I can command, that the first duty of the Government, of any Government, is to deliver peace and order. Social, economic and political advance are a mere mockery unless we can do that—and it is as simple as that.
Mr. Edelman Mr. Edelman rose—
Mr. Lyttelton: No, I cannot give way.
No one, least of all I, needs to be told that war, or near war, solves nothing. It makes me smile when people try to impress that on me. I know it. I have seen too much of it to think otherwise. Only a handful of my generation have survived the holocaust of 1914. But war is sometimes necessary, or all perishes. It was, and is, so in Kenya.
As the Parliamentary Delegation will find out, through all this, so far from social and economic progress having been arrested, it has actually been going forward at a greater pace than before. Hon. Members will recall the recent statement I made—and I give this as an instance—of the sums of money which this country has dedicated during the next five years to the cause of improving African agriculture.
We have to say that at the beginning of the struggle with Mau Mau excesses were perpetrated here and there by individual policemen. I abhor them, whatever were the provocations, and they were certainly great. I believe that today the police are well disciplined and that although there may be one or two cruel incidents they are rare exceptions. I believe that the rigorous inquiry into the conduct and discipline of the Armed Forces will show that in Kenya, as elsewhere, the name and reputation of the British Army as a whole is high; and that the horrible allegations which we are probing will turn out to be, at the worst, isolated, though none the less contemptible, blots on this otherwise fair record.
418
I wish to say a word or two about two things in which the House showed great interest during Question time: first, bombing ; and, secondly, the right to open fire in the prohibited areas. Someone, I do not know who—it was no one here—got the bombing all wrong by describing it as pattern bombing. In spite of all denials that lie has stuck. The House knows that such bombing is only upon specified, pin-pointed targets in the forests, and is carried out by one or two aircraft at a time.
I think that another word is necessary concerning the right to open fire in the prohibited areas. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) is particularly interested in this subject. To listen to some people, and some of the Questions asked, one might think that the forests were inhabited by large numbers of Kikuyu. That, of course, is ridiculous. They are often absolutely impassable and we have to cut tracks through them in order to supply the troops.
They are now used as a sanctuary, as strongholds, for the gangs of terrorists who raid the settled areas from the fringes of the forest and bring murder into the reserves. Every instrument of publicity has been used to inform all the Kikuyu that the forests are prohibited areas. I say that with great emphasis. Before I leave the subject of the Kikuyu I would ask some hon. Members to search their hearts and then to answer this question, "What would you have done, faced with the Mau Mau menace?" What other policy, faced as we were, by terror and murder, could have been pursued, other than that of suppressing it by force? But in carrying out that policy—and I think it is the policy which any Colonial Secretary must have pursued—we must suppress with equal energy and determination any excesses which, whatever the provocation, are committed on our side.
I turn now to Nigeria, the largest Colony, with 31 million inhabitants. I confess that my blood began to run cold when the right hon. Gentleman said that it was our greatest success, but he was soon able to obliterate that impression from the minds of his hon. Friends. I do not think he should be worried. When I visited Nigeria last May it was clear that the Constitution was working only with great difficulty. Storms were gathering. They can hardly be attributed to

419
mishandling by me, but still, they were gathering. It seemed to me that the Constitution was made to work only by the adroitness and patience of the Governor, Sir John Macpherson. In fact, my judgment then was, and still is, that the Constitution contained one or two fatal defects. First, that the Central Government, the Central Council of Ministers, were not separately elected. They were, in fact, delegates of the three Regional Governments. They were not Ministers representative of Nigeria, and their regional differences were projected into the centre at the council chamber. They had to look only to the regions for their support.
The situation became almost impossible for the Governor and the Central Council of Ministers to work, although I know that, with one or two notable exceptions, all the Ministers did their best to make it work. All this has been altered by the agreement reached last August.
The other great defect—and I admit it is a difficult question—was that of Lagos and I will say a word about that. If we listen to reason it is obvious that Lagos must be a federal area. Lagos is, first of all, the commercial centre of the country. All the firms carrying on their trade in Nigeria have their headquarters in Lagos. Secondly, it is by far the most important outlet through which Nigeria can ship her produce to the markets of the world. Finally, it is the political centre of the Federation, with Government House and the head offices of nearly all the Government departments. So if we were to follow the dictates of reason it would be clear that Lagos must be a federal capital.
But in politics, I admit, it is not always possible only to follow the dictates of reason. In Nigeria that does not apply, because the overwhelming majority of the population—including, according to my information, large sections of opinion in the West—are in favour of making Lagos a federal capital. The three main political parties entrusted me with the decision and undertook to abide by it when I had made it. This is a Motion of censure and I think I may say—although I am rather reluctant to do so—that the opinion almost universally held at the time the conference opened was that the task before it was well-nigh hopeless. That was
420
widely said. We sat all through the month of August, and we achieved great results. I will say no more than this, that if the Africans had been unable to get on well with me or I had been unable to get on with the Africans, nothing whatever would have been achieved; but something quite different has been accomplished, no doubt rather disagreeable to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. F. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman is back in his old form again.
Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly charges me with being at fault in all these troubles that have arisen in Africa.
Mr. J. Griffiths: On Nigeria, I began by saying that the Colonial Secretary had had a success. I then said that afterwards some contention had arisen and one point of criticism was about an exchange of telegrams with Mr. Awolowo. I did not make any general charge. I made a specified one, that the right hon. Gentleman showed a lack of tact in dealing with the matter.
Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman said I had had some success in Nigeria, which he could not possibly deny, but he immediately followed it up by drawing attention to a telegram which I had sent. He said that it had gone through a minor official, but even an ex-Secretary of State should know better. The letter was sent to Mr. Awolowo by the Chief Secretary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has enough experience of these things to know that if the Secretary of State started to correspond with individual Ministers in regional legislatures, that, without going through the usual channels, there would be very soon chaos.
At this London conference I was strongly pressed from all sides to preside at the resumed conference in Nigeria, and as it has been repeatedly made clear to me that that is the general desire of Nigeria that is what I am going to do.
I want now to turn to the affairs of Uganda. I do not propose to recite the facts which I have already made known to the House. For reference they are set out in a White Paper which is available in the Vote Office. The Kabaka is coming to see me tomorrow, and I can make no statement to the House today.

421
As the Motion of censure covers the whole of Africa, I cannot pass on from those Colonies where, as I said at the outset of my speech, the ferment of Africa is breaking out into troubles, without reference to those where they have not, or are at least of small importance. Last week the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, without that emotional exaggeration with which we have become accustomed to expect from him, referred to Uganda and described it as
"the seemingly one peaceful spot in Africa was now to follow the others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1281.]
Has he forgotten about the Gold Coast? The right hon. Gentleman carried on there the bold experiment which his predecessor, Mr. Creech Jones, had set in train after, incidentally, they had between them to declare two different sets of emergency in the Colony. Soon after I took office we agreed to take this experiment a small stage further by conferring on the leading Minister of the Gold Coast the title of Prime Minister.
Shortly after this I went to Accra, and held very long discussions with the Prime Minister and his other Ministers. I announced the willingness of Her Majesty's Government to discuss further proposals for further constitutional changes as soon as these were formulated by the Gold Coast Government themselves. These discussions are now going on, and there is every hope of success for a further considerable step forward in the territory's progress towards full responsibility for its own affairs.
I rejoice to pay tribute to my two predecessors for their pioneering work in this job, but I trust that they, in their turn, will be generous enough to recognise that I am carrying it on in the spirit in which they started it and conceived it; and that, if this territory continues to progress in this manner, they and we can share with the Governor, his advisers and with the African leaders the credit for these developments.
I pass quickly over Sierra Leone, where, in February of this year, I agreed to the introduction of a ministerial system. Orderly progress continues there. The first Ministers were, in fact, appointed in April. In the Gambia I have agreed to an enlargement of the Legislative Council and an unofficial
422
majority in the Executive Council with the creation of two Ministers. Progress continues. In Tanganyika, I have agreed that the unofficial seats in the Legislative Council shall be equally divided among the three racial groups. A Speaker has been appointed. Orderly progress continues.
In short, I claim that our record in Africa over these two years is that we have established federation; that the birth pangs have been passed with far less disturbance than its critics foretold; that all is set now after the elections for this great British experiment to found an inter-racial society based on partnership between the races; that in Nigeria, by far the largest British Colony, all the main difficulties, except Lagos, have been overcome successfully; and a Constitution which takes account of the realities, and may well give Nigeria a permanent framework under which its many races can live and prosper in a federal State, has been negotiated and agreed. The work, however, is not yet finished, and I hope that in presiding over the conference in January, I shall carry the good will and good wishes of at least a large number of hon. Members opposite.
Mr. James Johnson: Is it the Minister's intention, at these talks in Lagos, to widen the basis of discussion so that under his chairmanship the very vexed and contentious question of Lagos and the capital will be debated.
Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Member, who takes such a wise interest in all these matters, will agree that the least I say about these negotiations the better, and I would ask the House to give me the widest possible latitude in them and then judge by the results.
I apologise to the House for keeping it so long, but I now come to the last main subject with which I want to trouble hon. Members. It is the most serious of all. The House will remember that when I traced the causes for the discontents in Africa which are to be seen now in one or two of the Colonies I tried to give an objective view. I did not claim that the troubles which we inherited were due to the misdeeds or inactions of the previous Government. I should not advance this to the forefront of my argument for the very simple reason that I do not think it would be true, and it would give a false

423
emphasis and would be unworthy of the topic which is engaging us.
That mistaken policies and sometimes inaction and indecision by our predecessors have contributed to make these various crises and often to make them worse is, I fear, undoubted. In fact, I rather doubt whether any Administration could expect to steer its way through all these currents without striking an occasional rock. There is no statesman in Colonial affairs whom I have met who can look back upon his record and say, "I have made no mistakes, even in the light of my after-knowledge."
I do say that the Constitution of Nigeria was defective and that the inclusion of Lagos in the Western Region for the first time two years ago only glozed over what is one of the most acute issues in Nigerian politics. I do say that the attitude adopted, and the indecisive way in which it was advocated, caused a lot of the troubles over federation. I do say that imperfect intelligence over many years led the Mau Mau movement to get a far greater grip upon the Kikuyu than it should have. I do say that, since I have been in office, the attitude of many hon. Members on the subject of Kenya, and the stern but regrettable measures we have had to use to suppress the terrorists, have increased the burden which the security forces and Her Majesty's Government have had to bear.
I do say that the attitude adopted by some hon. Members that our fellow countrymen are always wrong and that changes in the political balance could have prevented all these troubles are arguments without foundation of any kind.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough) rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Lyttelton: I scorn the argument, and I do not advance it in the forefront of what I am saying, that the cause of these troubles is, in the main, the misdeeds or inactions of our predecessors in office. These matters are far too important for me to try to take tricks off the right hon. Gentleman in this way and, if
424
he looks back at his speech on the same subject, he will see that he made some rather trivial points when he was trying to build up his case.
I say, however, that any dispassionate or unpartisan observer would not think that there was a shadow of truth in the suggestion that these troubles are due to Her Majesty's present Government or to me. As for the cruel innuendo which was advanced by the Leader of the Opposition that it was my unsympathetic personality which had brought these troubles to the surface, what a remark—what a little remark in a big scene! The right hon. Gentleman translates my importance or my influence in these great convulsions far beyond what the greatest eulogist would claim.
I hope, if I am generous about right hon. Gentlemen opposite and say what I believe about all this, that a small measure of generosity will be forthcoming to one who has had the task—and I expressly repudiate that it has been an unenviable task, because I regard it as an opportunity—of first establishing peace and order and then of promoting the constitutional advance of these countries.
We in this House have a long tradition of treating these matters upon a national and not upon a party approach. It has been one of the proud traditions of Government in this country that we have been able to pursue, through the vagaries of democratic elections, a continuity of policy which alone, I suggest, has maintained the prestige of our country through the tangled pattern of affairs, even after civilisation has been rocked by two great wars.
This Motion of censure upon the Government's handling of affairs in Africa is the last step which the Opposition have taken in breaking down that approach so far as colonial affairs are concerned. I cannot but say, with the greatest sincerity, that I think it is against the national interest that we have reached this position. The House will know that in all these matters I have at least refrained from personalities, and if at times I have been betrayed into defending myself with vigour and with bluntness it has only been because I have been the subject of very great attack, both in the Left-wing Press and at Question time and at other times in this House.

425
The break-down of a non-party approach to colonial affairs began long before this Government came into office. It began when the right hon. Member for Llanelly made a broadcast—
Mr. William Warbey Mr. William Warbey (Broxtowe) rose—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman made a broadcast at the General Election on this subject which shocked a large body of opinion in the Colonies. The repercussions of that broadcast, believe me, are still felt. Again and again I have found in starting conferences that there was a distrust—this is the word which the right hon. Gentleman used so much—of a Conservative Colonial Secretary because that broadcast said that everything that had been done for the Colonies had been done by the Labour Party—[An Hon. Member: "Past experience."]—and that as soon as we had a Conservative Government the Colonies could expect nothing.
At least, I claim that everything we have done has been dictated solely and impartially by what appeared to me and to my colleagues to be for the best. When I look back upon the two years in which we have been in office, I should like first to acknowledge with warmth and gratitude the help I have had from many hon. and some right hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, the Government must look first to the official attitude of their opponents and not to the support which they receive from individual Members. When I look back—I hate to have to say this—I can recall no difficulty and no danger in which the official Opposition have tried to be helpful. I have discerned very much the same course of events in the various crises.
First, Her Majesty's Government have to take action. What happens? This is followed by a violent explosion in the Left-wing Press—"Lyttelton must go." Of course, at the time none of the facts are known—I see one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite who write these articles. Violent speeches are then made by hon. Members—the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) is quite right to hide his face.
Mr. John Baird: What about the arson in Guiana?
Mr. Lyttelton: That is a most unfortunate intervention.
The next thing that happens is that the Parliamentary Labour Party meets in the House of Commons and the first information is available. Other opinions begin to be expressed, and it is found that the party is not united. Then criticism of quite a mild kind is delivered from the Front Bench opposite, and what began as the assassination of democracy ends as a complaint that there are not enough copies of the Order in Council in the Vote Office, British Guiana is described as an island, and a Division is not challenged.
The smear campaign, however, goes on unabated in the country by the Left-wing Press. I should be out of order in referring to the storm of criticism which greeted the changes that I made in Malaya. Again, when we were faced with a civil war against Africans in Kenya, and when many of our fellow countrymen were living in fear of their lives, no help whatever was forthcoming from the official Opposition except the suggestion, which I repeat would have been completely ineffective, to send out an all-party delegation to Kenya in the middle of these troubles, with the power to cross-examine officials and to call for documents. The official Opposition confined itself to deploring the situation and criticising in detail each and every measure taken by the Government.
I shall say no more about what has come to light in Kenya. We are determined, and always have been, that any cruelty inflicted upon witnesses or upon the population by the police or the military should be suppressed with all the vigour of the law. My right hon. Friend and I are determined to see that the fair name of the Army is not besmirched by reckless or cruelaction by anyone.
I must say one word about summary justice. Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have tried to give the impression that I believe in summary justice—whatever the term means. Yet both in Malaya and Kenya I have completely resisted the ill-judged pressure which certain groups have brought to bear upon me in this respect. I think the position can easily be resolved, when people talk of summary justice, by asking

427
one question: Is the accused to be represented by counsel? The answer is nearly always "yes." Once we say "yes," there can be no drumhead court martial and summary justice. By increasing the number of judges we have tried to accelerate the administration of justice but, as I have said before, I pledged myself enthusiastically—and I think I have carried it out—to see that the principles of British law have been kept intact even in the height of the emergency.
It is a sad day which witnesses the final breakdown of a national and not a party approach to colonial affairs. If this debate did anything to clear the way or, at least, did anything to lay the foundations upon which we can go on to build a less partisan approach to these subjects, it would have been a good afternoon for us and, above all, it would have been a good afternoon for the Colonial Territories. Let no hon. Member forget that we are the most progressive colonial power in the world, and that we have all set our hands, whatever our party, to giving self-government within the Commonwealth to these territories. It ill-behoves us, when our sincere efforts meet with setbacks, and when law and order is sometimes threatened by a handful of terrorists or by the mighty ferment which is now stirring Africa, that we should seek only to probe the shortcomings of our opponents, and not endeavour to stress that wide measure of agreement which exists between us on all the essentials.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I should like to draw attention to some of the features of the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have been interested in the fact that he would like to have the unanimous opinion of the House on what has happened and is likely to happen in colonial affairs. Very rightly, the right hon. Gentleman defended himself against some of the things that have been said in the past, and it may be that he will have to defend himself against some things which will be said in this debate. I do not accuse him of brutality and wantonry, but I say that his tenure of office has been a disaster to the colonial peoples and has not added
428
much to the good name of this country in relation to its control of the Colonies.
The right hon. Gentleman started with a kind of monologue which might have been interesting as history. He spoke about the impact of certain things on these native peoples. He related, for instance, how Africans had been over to Farnborough and had seen the Comet, and he said that such things had made a great impact upon them. I agree, but the right hon. Gentleman has also sent Lancaster bombers to Kenya to the Africans there. They have experienced both kinds of impact from aeroplanes, and they are not very pleased about it. The right hon. Gentleman talks about a policy of humanity in the Colonies, which presumably he has carried out. My mind goes back to the beginning of the Kenya business and I know what was said at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman has always posed rather as a strong man in this business, a strong man who will put things down, and he has always been very careful to talk about law and order. I am always afraid when a Tory begins to talk like that. He talked about law and order and the other things which would follow. Why not try to talk the other way round? Why not talk about the other things first, because then more law and order would follow as a consequence?
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about humanity, I remember what he did. The right hon. Gentleman sent the British Navy, he sent reinforcements of troops, he arrested 17,000 or 18,000 people, he closed the schools, he had the women and children sent to the reserves. Dogs were trained to round up suspects, and a gallows was set up so that people could see what might happen to them. I have also been reading the White Paper report on the Griffiths case. It makes very painful reading. All these things, put together, do not seem to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman has been guilty of any great policy of humanity at the Colonial Office.
There are everyday things in which the Africans are vitally interested. If this country wants to keep up what the right hon. Gentleman describes as its good name in colonial matters, it would be better if we paid some attention to those things with which the poverty-stricken African is concerned every moment of his

429
life—questions of work, wages, housing, education, and the ever-recurring and important question of the land hunger of these people. Those are the things which are worrying millions of these people today. In the resurgence which is taking place among Africans, those are the things which they want and for which they are fighting.
Let us consider what we are doing with regard to those things. A White Paper issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, entitled "Central African Territories: Comparative Survey of Native Policy," gives a fair and fairly full account of the conditions in these territories in Africa. It gives an account of wages, of land hunger, taxation, colour bar problems, and all the rest. One gets from it a fair appreciation of what Africans are thinking and what they want. Are not these things, taken from that White Paper, likely to trouble the African people?
It says, for example, that in Southern Rhodesia the wages in agriculture range from a minimum of 20s. a month, with an average of 32s. 6d. per month. In mining the wages range from 35s. to 70s. in Southern Rhodesia, with an average wage of 47s. 6d. per month. In Northern Rhodesia underground mining work is paid for at 55s. per month minimum. Unskilled agricultural workers are paid 15s. per month, house boys in domestic service, 30s. per month, boys employed as gardeners 25s per month. I ask any hon. Member opposite if he thinks millions of people engaged under conditions like that, having to work for miserably low wages like that, including sometimes some amount of food, can be expected to be in a state of contentment with affairs as they are? Does any hon. Member opposite blame them if occasionally they are inclined to break the law to try to make things better?
If the Colonial Secretary tried to look at those problems in that way, instead of bringing down on these people, with all his might and main, every possible policeman, he would be a success. Let us consider how some of those people who have great influence in Africa—the Europeans—look at this question of wages. I have in my possession a booklet entitled "Birth of a Nation, the British Purpose In Central Africa," which has a foreword by "The Rt. Hon. L. S. Amery,
430
C. H." There are many rather big names attached to this pamphlet, not members of the proletariat but members of the governing classes.
On African work and wages, the pamphlet says:
"There are other considerations which help to explain the European view. As many OFFICIAL REPORTs on African territories have shown, the African's attitude towards his economic activity is not nearly as dependent upon the cash nexus as is that of the European. His tendency is to value leisure above money. If, for instance, his wages were to be raised so that he received for one month's work as much as he formerly received in a year, he would be less likely to congratulate himself upon his increase of wealth as upon his increase of leisure. 'Why,' he would tend to ask himself, 'should I work for 12 months when it is now only necessary to work for one month? This Arcadian attitude is being modified in parts of Central Africa, and it will no doubt undergo still greater modifications in the future, but it has to be taken into account."
The pamphlet calls these people "Lords of leisure." In other words, the attitude of the authors is that if one gives the African extra wages he will not work so often or so long, and one will have a job to get him back from his reserve after the end of his contract. These people who blame the Africans for liking leisure more than work are the last people in the world who ought to blame him. They have set him a great example.
The pamphlet goes on:
"Another important factor affecting differential wage rates is that they are based, not only upon skill, but upon temperament. If a European over a period of time has established his reliability, it is usually safe to assume that he will continue to be reliable: with the African that would be a dangerous assumption.
If an African obtains leave of absence to go home for a week's visit, for instance, there is the ever-present possibility that he will not present his cheerful face for another six or twelve months, and perhaps not then."
I know people in this country who do that—people of the class of the right hon. Gentleman. So it is not wise to blame the African over-much on that. The pamphlet also says:
"If the reader thinks that such happy-go-lucky attitudes are exceptional in Africa, let him ask any responsible person who has lived there for any length of time. It will then readily be seen that the European is employed and paid, not for his skill alone, but because he can be relied upon not suddenly to surrender himself to joyous abandon. The European has only his work to keep him alive, whereas the African often has other means of livelihood in the reserves."

431
What an improvident Providence it was that gave the African other means in his reserve besides having to work for the European for his living. How terrible it would be to see one of the rail way men now threatening to strike, with a wage of £5 17s. 6d. a week, if he got a rise of £1 next week and, in a spirit of joyous abandon, took his wife and kids on the Riviera, or went off on a luxury cruise.
That is the way in which hon. Members opposite look at this question of wages. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about humanity and understanding, he shows that he has not begun to understand the problem except in terms of law and order, of force, and sending the Army, the Navy and the bomber. He says they must learn that lesson first and, if they learn it, he will do something to help them.
This attitude about wages is nothing new. It existed in this country for long enough; it exists now. When we talk of the African not working and say that if he were given more money he would work less, I remember what happened in my industry of mining. I remember coming to this House of Commons in 1926, and coal owners who sat on the Government benches imploring us to settle the dispute and go back to work. They said, "If you only go back and increase production by half a cwt. a shift, prosperity will follow." We went back. [An Hon. Member: "Driven back."] Yes, we were driven back. We increased production, but our wages went down and down until in 1931 or 1932 effective action had to be taken to put into operation a wage which was hardly sufficient to keep body and soul together. We have experienced these things in this country and we know the attitude of hon. Members opposite to these topics. Because of that experience, we have very little faith in hon. Members opposite.
I wish to say a word or two about land hunger. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we cannot put up with murder, and that the Mau Mau are wrong. The right hon. Gentleman said that all this was lying beneath the surface. He may be right, but it was not long in coming to the surface when he came into office. It has been on the surface ever since. We hardly know what to do about it. I suggest that it is time this country
432
turned its attention to these questions of work, wages, land, education and housing, and to all the things from which the African is suffering. If we did that, we would begin to make an impact on the problem.
It is quite true that the African is becoming alive to these circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that it is easy for the African to get in touch with higher civilisation and that he is getting an increasing number of newspapers and periodicals. He is beginning to know what these things mean, and is asking that he shall have a share of them. He is right in doing that. One of the things of which we are most proud in this country is the fact that we have liberty and freedom. We have a long record of freedom, and the African is aspiring to the same kind of thing. It is our duty to help him as much as we can.
I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention once again to the question of the colour bar. The last time I spoke on Kenya I related how the colour bar operated there with tremendous and deadly effect on the mind of the African. The other day I was surprised, but to a certain extent pleased, to read in the "Daily Express" an attack on the right hon. Gentleman on this question of the colour bar. That newspaper said:
"On the holiday island of Bermuda life goes back to normal. And be sure that there are some on the island who hope they will now be left in perfect peace. It is the duty of the British Parliament to see that these hopes are frustrated. For the searchlight of publicity has shown up some most unpleasant facts about life in Bermuda."
Mr. Patrick Maitland: What has Bermuda to do with Africa?
Mr. Harold Davies: It is the same in Africa.
Mr. Paling: If hon. Members had listened, they would know that I said that on the last occasion I spoke of the colour bar in Africa. I am giving an illustration from another part of the world to show what the colour bar means and what the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is to the colour bar. The article continues:
"The colour bar excludes the big majority of Her Majesty's people in Bermuda from any position of responsibility or dignity. And Mr. Lyttelton argues there can be no change in that intolerable situation because the bar is essential to the dollar tourist trade.

433
How monstrous to suggest that a vital human principle should be sacrificed for dollars. Mr. Lyttelton is simply pandering to intolerance.
Instead he should be compelling the white people of Bermuda to give up their intolerance. It would do their tourist trade no harm, anyway."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman has got a little away from Africa.
Mr. Paling: I have made my point and I bring it to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. When he talks about dealing with these people in a humane way, particularly in regard to the colour bar, does he think he is dealing in a humane and sympathetic way with people in Bermuda? Does he know that in some parts of Africa the colour bar is more vicious than it is in Bermuda? The people of this country are losing faith in the right hon. Gentleman. His record is disastrous; I think the best thing he could do, both for Africa and for this country, would be to get out.
5.49 p.m.
Sir Walter Fletcher: I am delighted to have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I speak as one who has lived in Africa. It was a great many years ago. I was in the East African Campaign in 1914 to 1918 for three years and for three years after that I lived in Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya. Therefore I speak of a different epoch, but one of historical importance from which a great many of the events of today spring. The right hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling) will, of course, excuse me if I do not follow him in the pitiful inadequacy and irrelevancy of the remarks he has put forward. I have rarely heard a speech so stuffed with ignorance, prejudice and unwillingness to face the facts.
The Motion as set down—and the period of gestation to produce it is, I should think, the longest on record—is couched in certain terms. It uses the word "Africa." Included in that, of course, is the Cape. We could discuss Dr. Malan's policy. Included in that is Morocco. We could discuss the circumstances under which the French Government have been forced to remove a ruler—and that cannot be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. We can even discuss Egypt and Egyptian matters.
Sir Richard Acland: Come on, discuss it.
Sir W. Fletcher: I propose to touch on that. What we could also point out is the curious change which there has been in the people who signed this Motion of censure. In television terms, at least two Members have been thrown to the wolves. I refer to the hon. Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). With "consumer choice," the wolves would select Oldham as the portion that they would go for first. But it is significant that this Motion of censure has now been taken out of the hands of the two chief instigators of it originally and has become something much more serious: a clear Opposition policy.
I warned the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that I was going to say something about Egypt, which is an integral part of Africa, and which is not a political entity but a geographical one. I was going to suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman burst forth in the Press there, he must remember that one of the new features throughout the whole of Africa, in the state of ferment in which it finds itself and which the Colonial Secretary has described, has been the springing up of a vast and not always very responsible native Press. If, therefore, in the Press in any part of Africa, a Privy Councillor from this country likes to put forward views, which must carry weight and which must be copied everywhere, he is indeed taking on himself a responsibility which goes far further than he may imagine.
We are told that the right hon. Gentleman is going out to Egypt. I hope he will spend 5s. on a tarboosh, because that would enable him to disappear without trace among the local crowds. But in thousands of years to come, because the climate and the sand there preserve papers, when the tomb of Aneurin and that of his great consort Janilee is reopened, his articles would undoubtedly make curious reading as coming from somebody outside the country who has stepped in there and expressed opinions which run like wildfire and which will be repeated in every small native paper throughout the country. It is that sort of irresponsible subversive activity which we on this side of the House so deeply deplore.
Mr. Baird Mr. Baird rose—
Sir. W. Fletcher: Let me finish. Let me go back a little into the history, because we cannot judge today's events until we do that. I say this to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who opened the debate. When I was in Africa, what was the state of affairs? The fear of slavery had not fully vanished. I lived in Zanzibar, in the house that had once belonged to the chief slave trader, and in the cellar of that house, there were the great iron spikes driven into the walls to which the slaves had been chained. When we were going to capture Dares Salaam in 1917 we landed at Bagamoyo, which was the great slave port. Those of us who really got to know the African by living with him in patience, which is the chief virtue that one needs in dealing with him, saw then and realised that in his mind there was still the fear of slavery. The record of this country in the emancipation of slavery was treasured in Africa and is still remembered.
From that sprang a great many other things. We were also in the epoch—and it is important to remember it—when the great tussle for power had taken place in Africa, and particularly in Eastern Africa; when the great European countries—ourselves, Germany, Belgium, Portugal and others—had all obtained spheres of influence and had built strategic railways, which today are economic units. From that period springs the history to a great extent of what is happening today.
When I heard the right hon. Member for Dearne Valley talking as if the events of Kenya had sprung up in the last two years, I realised the complete inadequacy of his knowledge of the subject. There has been in all these countries a gradual move towards the present state of things. It has not suddenly sprung up overnight, and it is quite foolish to think that it has.
But there are two units: there is Africa, and there is "Arfrica," which we hear so often from the right hon. Member for Llanelly. His "Arfrica" is an unreal, non-existent unit. He talks about the African. There is no such thing. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a tour of the Lake Victoria area alone, he would find at least seven tribes of varying size, with practically no connection in their way of life, their language, their
436
tradition or what they do. To pretend that that is not so is not to face the facts. The real difficulty about federation, which my right hon. Friend has made clear is not a problem for today but one which will force itself upon us, a problem for tomorrow, and it is this: that unfortunately in the eyes of many of us the small unit cannot survive economically.
Uganda, which fears a certain form of, let us say, white domination being imposed upon it, happened to be the one country in that part of Africa where political no us and sense prevailed long before we set foot in it. Before Speke, Lugard and Harry Johnson appeared, there was already a developed system of government, and I, who had the privilege and honour of helping to draw up the first cotton rules in Uganda in 1919, saw how easy it was to get this politically-minded people to work. I had the honour of the acquaintance of the then Kabaka, father of the present Kabaka, a magnificent athletic young man of great power and sense, who had the advice of a Prime Minister, an old African, who had more wisdom in his head than I have found in most politicians in many parts of the world. But the Waganda were not typical of Africa. They cannot, however, in the long run fail to face these facts about federation, which must be considered now unless we are to have put before us, without any opportunity for study, another series of crises.
What really governs events in Africa? Facts—ethnological, geographical facts. The failure and tragedy of the groundnut scheme, to which I am not referring in any party spirit, was not the £40 million that was lost, although we could do with it at present; but it was lost because there was a desire to fit the local facts into the theories of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and for no other reason.
What are the facts? There is in Eastern Africa a coastal strip with the same problem everywhere. It is divided into two, partly Tanganyika, partly Kenya. There is a highland group, in which most of the white population is centred, and, therefore, a good deal of the political bias is there; and there are the two lake basins, Victoria and Tanganyika, in which the same problems exist. In the end—I wrote articles on this very question in the "Daily Telegraph" in 1922; this is no new subject—federation in Eastern Africa, which will bring

437
peace to Uganda and prosperity to Kenya, where it is deserved by the white settler for the pioneer work he has done and also by the other races, and on the coastal strip, will be forced upon the people by the geographical and ethnological facts.
There should be in this House a large raised map of the whole of the African Territories showing tribe by tribe the size, the existence and the history of each tribe, the rainfall and the soil. The real facts should be examined before hon. Gentlemen start to talk about their democratic theories, because they will not work unless the prosperity that comes from a knowledge of the economic facts, digested and put into a form in which it can work, has been acquired. This is no new subject, but the blindness—I sometimes think the wilful blindness—the desire to fit the facts to the theory, persists on the other side of the House, and from thence tragedy flows and will continue to flow.
If hon. Gentlemen take the countries which make up Uganda, as we call it, they will find a line can be drawn almost as sharply as a razor. On one side live the people who have no political understanding and who are entirely a cattle-minded people, and on the other side there are people with full political understanding far more than is possessed in any other tribe or group of tribes anywhere in East Africa. These are the facts of the case. The same is true to a considerable extent in Central and West Africa.
If a great deal more time were spent looking at the economic and ethnological facts and then grafting on to them the correct form of political and democratic machine for Government, we should get somewhere. In dealing with the Africans, there is one quality that is needed more than any other—patience. I was in control of a mixed force of 6,000 Africans recruited from various people when I was running sisal estates in Tanganyika, and I never had any trouble at all. The reason was that every evening I was accessible to listen to every complaint and every story that was put to me.
As long as we listen to the African—and now this is more important than ever because, though a very low proportion are literate, a great many who are not are nevertheless informed—we shall do better. If we will listen more carefully and set our pace rather more slowly than we
438
are doing at present, if we realise that the ballot box is not a panacea; that we cannot cure by giving a democratic constitution; that we cannot turn the people into a really politically-minded adequate state to govern themselves, we shall do better than we have been doing up to now. It is very easy to condemn, as we have heard from the other side of the House, but it is very difficult to administer.
One of the greatest disadvantages is the speeding up of modern means of communication. What I call "flying saucery" is a most unfortunate feature. My right hon. Friend gave a picture of arriving in some part of Africa, and the next day the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and the hon. Member for Oldham, West followed him. Let us hope that that does not happen at Ujiji and that they do not go up and say, "Dr. Lyttelton, I presume," because that would be history very nearly repeating itself.
What is the result? It is the breakdown of the authority of the Governor and those who act for him in the districts. In the days when I knew Africa well, the district officer and the assistant district officer had to know everything that went on in the district. They had to know and, therefore, they were able to spot trouble a long time ahead. Today that has all broken down. The Governor is on the end of a telephone. He in turn can either send a helicopter or a message by telegraph to the local post boy, which is what the district commissioner and the provincial commissioner have become.
It is this breaking down of authority, together with the sending out of the numerous "flying saucers" from both Front Benches and other parts of the House, that has done great disservice to the true Government of all our Colonial Territories. In the old days the Governor had to take the responsibility. Therefore, he was not able to "pass the buck." The same is equally true the whole way down the line.
I would plead on different lines to what we have heard in this House. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough tried to bring off a very effective and old Parliamentary trick by saying to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, "Go." I say to him, "Stay.

439
do not go to Africa." This nodding acquaintance with the hand-picked, specially selected local committee, which will put before him a picture which will not represent the truth in any way at all, is a tragedy.
I happened during the war in China to see the arrival of a Parliamentary mission. In those days when I was not a Member of Parliament, my respect for that animal was rather less than it is now. I saw how carefully prepared the calculated deception of that Parliamentary mission was. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that does not prevail now? When they go out for two or three weeks, or two or three days, and come back and preach to us here as to what local opinion is, it means nothing at all. It is an absolute travesty of fact.
Until one has sat down and soaked oneself in the atmosphere, until one has come to think in African terms—which are not our terms, though they are changing—until one has seen and felt for oneself the different standards—the things we consider axiomatic which they do not consider even important—until one has digested and understood that, one can do nothing but harm in coming back and reporting, as is done here so frequently. Indeed, I very often suspect, when I listen to certain hon. Members opposite, that they seize avidly the opportunity not to learn but to propagandise. That is something they should refrain from doing.
The great magnaminity with which my right hon. Friend treated the attack on him this afternoon impressed me. I do not say that I have always agreed with him, or that I always shall agree with him in all his actions, but I say that this permanent denigration, this permanent picking on every small mistake made, when on the opposite side of the House those who were guilty of the groundnut scheme, which was the chief mark left by the Labour Party in Africa in the last ten years, is scandalous.
Mr. John Strachey: The hon. Gentleman referred to the groundnut scheme. In comparison with his right hon. Friend, I would very much rather have failed to grow groundnuts in Tanganyika than have succeeded in producing insurrection in Kenya.
Sir W. Fletcher: The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) must be filled with self-satisfaction, because he did fail to produce the groundnuts. He also went quite a long way towards sowing the seeds of discontent in Kenya—[HON MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. There are disappointed people in what was described as an "Eldorado"s by another right hon. Gentleman. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) is also present. He and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West, between them, have the responsibility for failure and deception which is very great indeed and from which a great many of the present troubles spring.
But this is a time when I hope that we shall be able to say that this is the last debate in which the vendetta spirit will abound. The Secretary of State has now, on three occasions, withstood a personal vendetta. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should begin to realise just a little bit that they are harming themselves by doing this. The African, though he may not be politically advanced, has a fairly good nose for what is right and what is wrong. He can see and feel fairly well who is really striving to advance him and who is not and merely makes political capital out of him. It is clear from what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon that the sincere desire to advance slowly and safely is embedded in all my hon. Friends, and that will transmit itself to Africa.
To give—as if it were in our gift, which it is not—democracy to Africa, even when it is recommended by such a demagogue as the last Colonial Secretary, is something quite different.
Dr. H. Morgan: Nonsense.
Sir W. Fletcher: What is the use of giving a people a Constitution for their political well-being if they are economically unable to support themselves and physically unable to defend themselves? They are easy prey—the tribal history of Africa shows it—to those all round. We have to shoulder the responsibility for a good while longer, and we can shoulder it much better together.
I want to say a word about Uganda, a country which I hold very dear. During the last two years, I have been able to contemplate pluses and minuses—when

441
one is ill one has that opportunity—and I have felt that in my life I have assisted in the development of that country. The Kabaka, whose father I knew, comes of a dynasty about which nothing but good can be said, and few such dynasties have survived in Africa. In his heart of hearts, the Kabaka is saying what every one of us has to say on many occasions, the prayer which goes out from the greatest and wisest of us very frequently, "Lord, give me another chance."
Where it will be, how it will be, and in what circumstance, it is impossible to say, but I feel that throughout Africa the fairness in dealing which the Colonial Secretary has shown throughout to the Kabaka and the support which he has given to the Governor at the same time may make it possible in the future for one further step forward to be taken in the wonderful record of development of Africa that we hold.
I saw the German development of German East Africa before it became Tanganyika, the Belgian development of the Belgian Congo and the Portuguese development of Portuguese East Africa, and, in no offensive spirit to those countries, I say that if we look at our record in Africa over the last 50 years we must be driven to the conclusion that it is outstandingly good. If the impression goes out—it must do so after the speeches which we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench—that that line has been abandoned, irreparable harm will be done.
Let us hope that the Colonial Secretary, who is stout-hearted, and, under his stout-hearted exterior, very kind-hearted, will find some opportunity of helping this misguided young man who stands for a tradition of government and for a people with a great future to play as the leading democracy in Eastern Africa.
Federation is coming and will come. It should be studied now, and we ought to look upon African problems in the light of facts. If we do that and have less of the irrelevant nonsense which we had from the previous speaker, we can make slow but real progress.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. John Strachey: The Colonial Secretary spent a great deal of time in the main part of his speech going round the African scene and painting a very favourable picture. We were
442
told that in most parts of Africa things were well, and that if there were difficulties and troubles in some areas, they were due to the unreasonableness of the Africans or to nationalist feelings in those areas. Thus it was said that the suspicions of the Nyasaland chiefs were greatly exaggerated, that the Action Group in Nigeria was being rash over Lagos, and that the Kabaka in Buganda was being unreasonable, and so on. Each trouble spot was explained away. Above all, we were told that in Kenya the Kikuyu were reverting to savagery and barbarism, which in part is undoubtedly true.
What struck me, and must have struck the House, was that that picture of Africa is totally at variance with what we know to be the facts and what we know to be common knowledge about the facts. If we read "The Times" and other responsible newspapers today, it is apparent that it is common ground that, unfortunately, in British Colony after Brtish Colony in Africa there is, in varying degrees but to a most serious extent, suspicion of our motives, and there is unrest, and in Kenya there is this terrible and tragic insurrection.
Let us for a moment accept every word that the right hon. Gentleman said in defence of his own actions, speeches and letters. Let us accept for a moment all the criticisms which he made about this African group or that African group in relation to tactlessness and rashness. Yet the fact remains that the House is confronted by a loss of confidence in Her Majesty's Government over very wide areas of African opinion, a loss of confidence which expresses itself in suspicions in one place and unrest in another and in open insurrection in Kenya.
However that situation has come about or whoever is to blame for it, that is the subject to which this House has to address itself, and it seems to be a position of the very utmost seriousness. The Opposition feel—how can we help feeling it?—thatin other areas the situation might degenerate to the point which it has done in Kenya, where government is Carried on only by the chronic exercise of open force. When one gets to that stage, however inevitable it seems when one gets to it, that stage of governing only by using chronic and perpetual force, one has

443
very nearly reached the point where the minimum element of consent amongst the governed, which alone really makes government possible in the long run, has gone.
The reason we challenge the Government and express our lack of confidence in them—it is not so much our lack of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman; the right hon. Gentleman is only the instrument of the Government, although an exceedingly blunt instrument—is that their actions are undeniably, obviously and to common knowledge leading more and more to a loss of the minimum degree of consent in the governed, without which government is impossible in Africa or anywhere else.
I put it to the Government Front Bench that, if there is any lesson in experience, it is that the British people do not indefinitely allow their Government to carry on its rule by force. We have evidence of that in the Black and Tan period in Ireland and in what happened after Amritsar in India. If the history of occasions on which government by these means has broken down proves anything, it proves that the British people do not allow their Government ultimately and indefinitely to carry on government by force.
I, for one, am very glad that the British people do not, because if there is anything certain, it is that, though no one says anybody can avoid using force on some occasions—of course, they must do so—continuing for long and indefinite periods to rule almost exclusively by force degrades and debases the people who use that force even more than those against whom it is used.
It is in that connection that I want to say a few words to the House on the subject of the situation in Kenya, and to say them from the point of view, which naturally interests me very much, of the British Army in Kenya, the tasks which the British Army is being forced to undertake in Kenya, and the effect which the indefinite continuance of those operations is bound to have on the repute, good name and morale of the British Army.
In that connection, we have all read the proceedings of the court martial on Captain Griffiths which my successor, the present Secretary of State for War, placed
444
in the Library, and we have all read those proceedings with the utmost concern. Certainly, it is no part of my intention to try to retry that case this afternoon or any other afternoon. The interest in those proceedings lies in the picture which they reveal of what is happening to the Army in Kenya as a result of the continuance, month after month—and the campaign is now in its second year—of the tasks which we are imposing on the Army.
I want to read to the House one extract from those proceedings; it is not one of what we might call the horror extracts which have been quoted in the Press; it is merely an extract which gives us a picture which, I suggest, must fill any one of us who has the good name of the British Army at heart with the utmost concern. It is an extract from a series of questions and answers from the cross-examination of Captain Joy, who was the companion of Captain Griffiths in the jeep from which the shots were fired by Captain Griffiths which resulted in the death of two African foresters.
In order to make the extract which I shall quote clear to the House, I have to say two things. One is that, as I understand it—and the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—even in one of these prohibited areas of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, it is not the case that Africans can be shot at sight. They must be challenged, and they can only be shot if they refuse their names or attempt to escape. I see that the Secretary of State himself confirms that. The second thing that I must make clear is that, as a matter of fact, the area in which the two African foresters were shot by Captain Griffiths was not a prohibited area.
With these two things in mind, I should like to read this extract, because I think it illustrates what I mean. It is to be found on page 50 of the proceedings, and the extract begins with the prosecuting counsel asking this question:
"Why did you assume that anyone could be fired on"?
Captain Joy: I was under the impression that it was a prohibited area.
The Judge-Advocate: You encountered a postman. Would it have been all right if the accused had taken it into his head to shoot the postman?
Captain Joy: Under the circumstances, yes, because I assumed it was a prohibited area.

445
The Judge-Advocate: You thought the military had a complete discretion as to sparing anyone found in that area?
Captain Joy: Yes, Sir.
A member of the court: Were you carrying a personal weapon yourself?
Captain Joy: I was.
A member of the court: Why did you not shoot the lorry driver?
Captain Joy: I do not know.
The Judge-Advocate: The military had a complete discretion to decide whom it was necessary to shoot?
Captain Joy: Yes.
The President: Shooting without asking questions?
Captain Joy: I have always understood that, in a prohibited area, a person of the Armed Forces is entitled to open fire on any African.
A member of the court: If it was a prohibited area, would you not have been informed?
Captain Joy: I had not been informed.
The Judge-Advocate: Where did you gel the impression that in a prohibited area you had a complete discretion to shoot anyone?
Captain Joy: I think that impression was formed by conversations which I had heard in the officers' mess.
The President: You went out on an operation and fired a Bren gun, and all you went on was a conversation you had in the officers' mess?
Captain Joy: That is correct."
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not attacking Captain Joy, Captain Griffiths or any particular officer. In selecting that extract from these proceedings—and one could give many others—I am simply suggesting that it shows a state of confusion—indeed, I am bound to use the word brutalisation—which long-continued operations of this kind are bound to produce. And I am bound to say that, if this goes on in this area, and if it spreads, as we apprehend, to other areas of Africa, then it will have and must have a ruinous effect on the Army about which we must be profoundly concerned.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement that this sort of thing goes on, but what he was reporting to the House took place well over six months ago. On what basis does he now make that statement to the House?
Mr. Strachey: It took place, as a matter of fact, in June—not well over six months ago, but under six months ago, to be exact. I am afraid—and I answer this
446
quite frankly—that, although General Erskine is no doubt making the most intense efforts to eradicate this kind of thing from the Army, if we rule by these methods—which, after all, have become intensified since that time by the bombing that is now going on and which was not going on then—and if that situation continues, so will that psychology, that degree of irresponsibility—I think that is the word—and that type of conversation in the officers' mess. We can all too easily imagine inevitably that conversation. That is the kind of complaint I am making, and I am not putting blame on any individual.
The next thing I want to ask is what assurances have we that still another of these odious police operations which are being imposed on the Army in Africa is not upon us now. This is the second consideration I put before the House. I believe that the question whether the Army will not have another, even greater and even more odious task of this sort will depend on the decisions which the Government reach on the subject of Egypt. Egypt has been referred to in the course of the last speech we have heard, and Egypt is in Africa.
The Government are confronted with the question whether they are going on with their reasonable, wise and sensible attempt to reach agreement with the Egyptian Government on the basis of the complete evacuation of the troops of this country from the Canal Zone. Or are the Government going to give way to the group which has formed itself behind them and abandon these negotiations?
This is a most serious issue, above all for the British Army. If the Government abandon these negotiations they will have two alternatives. The first is of sitting on where they are behind barbed wire in the Suez Canal Zone. Of course, they will not have the slightest difficulty in doing so; with 80,000 highly mechanised and heavily armed British troops they can stay on there till Doomsday. I have not the slightest doubt about it, but they will be sitting there to no purpose whatever. I challenge the Government to deny that their military advisers will all say that to keep British troops there in face of the implacable hostility and non-co-operation of the Egyptian Government is one of the most wholly useless things that could possibly be done. The troops

447
will be kept there simply to appease the group of diehards behind the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: If the right hon. Gentleman holds these views, why was it that when he was Secretary of State for War he did not take any steps to run down these 80,000 troops?
Mr. Strachey: In those days we had some 10,000 troops there, if my memory serves me aright. There are now 80,000 troops there. It has become clearer and clearer that as long as we maintain fighting troops on that scale in that area of Egypt, quite outside our Treaty rights, it is impossible to have that minimum co-operation with the Egyptian Government which is indispensable.
The other thing that the Government can do—and this is far more logical if they break off negotiations with the Egyptians—is not to sit on in the Canal Zone totally uselessly, but to re-occupy Cairo and Alexandria. I have said that before in this House. That is the only logical alternative to coming to an agreement with the present Egyptian Government. If the Government do that—and even to some extent if they simply sit on at Suez—quite apart from world repercussions and the matter coming before U.N.O.—I believe that it is wholely impracticable on that account—the Government will be faced with another long struggle of indefinite duration carried on against a nationalist movement. This time they would be coping with them in a highly-populated country.
It is fashionable in this House to speak in the most slighting terms of the power of resistance of the Egyptians. We are told that they are such decadent people that we need not worry about them in any way. I can well believe that the power of the Egyptian Army in the field is very small. We have seen that in the war with Israel. Are we so sure that there are not individual Egyptians, and a fair number of them, who are not filled with a certain spirit of fanaticism in the assertion of what they rightly or wrongly consider to be the elementary rights of their country? Would not guerrilla warfare give us very great difficulties indeed?
448
I have in mind the Ismailia incident of two years ago. My information there is that the particular Egyptian police who were concerned in that incident fought very hard and died very heroically, and had to be blown to bits to the last man by the gunfire of Centurion tanks. It seems that since then a national monument has been raised to these men. The spirit of nations which may have sunk low is sometimes much changed by these incidents.
It would be rash indeed to suppose that, if we undertook another long-drawn-out, interminable campaign of semi-police action semi-warfare in Africa, it would not be a like burden because it was in Egypt. I ask Her Majesty's Ministers to think very hard indeed of the burdens which we are placing on the Army from which, as I think I have shown in the extract I read, it is suffering very badly already in Kenya, before the Government place another heavy burden upon it.
In this debate, as in all such debates, there emerge two conceptions. I may call one for short the "Empire" conception and the other the "Commonwealth" conception. The old Empire conception is still held very sincerely and very fiercely indeed by many hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. It is a conception of this country ruling peoples all over the world, no doubt for their own good. The Commonwealth conception is, putting it equally crudely, simply that of transforming that imperial structure into a Commonwealth in which the members become self-governing units as fast as is practicable, and remain in the Commonwealth only by their own consent. The Colonial Secretary assured us a dozen times over in his speech that he adhered to that Commonwealth conception, and we are very glad to hear it.
Some of the actions of the present Government confirm that, as in West Africa, and recent actions in the Sudan undoubtedly confirm it. But some of their actions, and some of their policies in Africa, do not confirm it. What is worse, and surely this is not a matter of doubt or argument, those actions clearly have convinced, however wrongly, masses of the African population that the Government have abandoned the Commonwealth conception and are going

449
back to the Empire conception. That is the seriousness of the damage, perhaps irreparable, which is being done by the present Government.
We on this side of the House are accused of being in favour of the liquidation of the British Empire. That is very often thrown at us as a taunt from the Government side of the House. We are not; but if hon. Members mean that we are in favour of the Empire's transformation into a Commonwealth, with all that that means, including the freedom of members of the Commonwealth to leave it, then we are in favour of it. After all, in the five years that our Government were in office we transformed by far the larger part of the Empire into precisely such a Commonwealth. I do not think it is often realised.
I added up the figures the other night. Of the 550 million people who, in 1945, were ruled directly from this House, 470 million of them were no longer ruled directly from this House by 1950. Most of them, I am glad to say, have stayed in the Commonwealth but some, like Burma, have not. I glory in that immense transformation, that immense work of dis-imperialism which that Government undertook.
The root of the trouble that we are getting into in Africa today and which is increasing, is much deeper than the causes ascribed by the right hon. Gentleman. The root of it is that the right hon. Gentleman is failing to maintain the confidence of the people in the African Colonies that we are determined steadily and genuinely to push along the course to self-government.
What can be the consequences of all this? Can anyone doubt that, sooner or later—in some parts of Africa by no means yet, in other parts of West Africa fairly soon—these people will become self-governing? That, surely, is not doubted or disputed. But if during the intervening years we have lost their confidence, it means that when they become self-governing they will not remain in the Commonwealth. That, to my mind, would be a tragedy both for them and for us. It is precisely because the profound stupidity and profound lack of imagination of the right hon. Gentleman's policy and that of his Government will, if continued, have the effect of prejudicing the
450
whole future of the British Commonwealth, that we express our profound lack of confidence in that policy.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I do not wish to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) at any great length, but I do want to say how unworthy I thought was his intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher). I do not want to drag up the sorry fiasco of the ground nuts scheme or to make any unfair capital out of it, but I think it right and proper to protest against the sort of insinuation which the right hon. Gentleman so easily throws up, namely, that he would rather fail in the groundnut scheme than succeed in producing disorder, violence and bloodshed in Kenya.
Mr. Strachey: Certainly.
Mr. Peyton: If the right hon. Gentleman really adheres to that opinion and statement, then I think that he will ultimately face a very adverse and very severe judgment at the bar of history and at the bar of public opinion.
Mr. Strachey: The whole burden of this censure Motion is that, rightly or wrongly—and we are convinced rightly—we think that the policy of the Secretary of State for the Colonies is producing suspicion here, unrest there, and actual insurrection in this one place. I certainly adhere to that.
Mr. Peyton: I am glad to know where the right hon. Gentleman stands, but I would like him to read Sir Philip Mitchell's dispatch on Kenya, which shows that this discontent, violence and revolutionary uprising has been bred from seeds which have been germinating for 30 years or more, and has not been produced by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Strachey: I do not want to criticise Sir Philip Mitchell, but the curious thing is that his dispatches show the exact opposite. They were far too complacent, and suggested that there was very little trouble in Kenya. The hon. Member cannot have read them, because they say the exact opposite of what he now tells us.
Mr. Peyton: I have not got the dispatches with me.
Mr. Strachey: I have
Mr. Peyton: If the right hon. Gentleman has them in his pocket then he has the advantage of me, because he will be able to turn up a fairly early page on which reference is made to a district officer's report which states the various causes of unrest in Kenya in 1930 or thereabouts, and which says that unless action is taken to deal with that unrest the consequences will be disastrous.
No action was taken by successive Governments to deal with those very severe problems. Even with that in mind, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Colonial Secretary was responsible for producing bloodshed and disorder in Kenya. I say without any equivocation whatsoever that that is a shameful and most unworthy allegation to make.
My understanding of this debate may be at fault, but I was clearly under the impression that the intention of the Opposition—it is sometimes very difficult to diagnose its intentions—was to censure my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West devoted a considerable portion of his speech to the Canal Zone which, I thought, might more appropriately be discussed tomorrow.
I want now to pass to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and to say, at the outset, how surprised I was that this Motion was put on the Order Paper, in view of the debate which we had only last week. I was very disappointed with the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared to me that there was a tremendous contrast in generosity and magnanimity between the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and the speech made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, which he was seeking to answer.
I know that it is fair and right for a certain amount of party gain to be made when a Minister fails, but this unending nagging and the failure ever to give credit where credit is due is something quite different. When my right hon. Friend was half way through his great speech, the right hon. Gentleman opposite admitted that this was only half a Motion of Censure, that in the West of Africa all was quiet today—a case of "All Quiet on the Western Front."
Much of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was devoted to a single theme, that, as a result of the
452
policies of Her Majesty's Government, and, in particular, the policy of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, mistrust was being actively sown among the Africans today. The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by asking who, in this House, would like to go back to 1951 in Africa and to the confidence which was then felt. At a previous point in his speech, he referred to the carelessness of my right hon. Friend in throwing matches into tinder. He referred to a distrust which was becoming ever deeper.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Is he saying that when the present Government took office Africa was peaceful, contented and happy, and that there was no anxiety, distrust or lack of confidence, or is he saying—as he did in one part of his speech—that it was like tinder which, if a match were dropped into it, would explode? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a plain answer to that question.
Instead of talking about going back to 1951, it would not be unfair, I think, to go back to 1900 and to measure the immense progress which has since been made in this vast continent, where at that time not even the wheel was known. Let us admit our faults, but do not let us be too weak-kneed to claim some credit for the immense achievements which we have been able to make.
I believe that two results can flow from the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly, and that they will flow whether he wishes it or not. First, he will persuade people, as apparently he has sought to do all along, that the policies of Her Majesty's Government are designed exclusively for the whites. I do not believe that to be true for one moment, and if ever a denial was necessary, a monumental one was forthcoming from my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary this afternoon. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman was speaking hypothetically but he actually used these words, "Another pledge on the way out." In the name of conscience, why did he use those words? No pledge is, in fact, on the way out, yet the right hon. Gentleman, apparently at random and wantonly, is prepared to make these accusations.
I think that the second effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is to add strength to the conviction which is growing in Africa that the official Opposition is

453
very much anti-white, and has no sympathy whatever for the white people out there, who have the practical burden to bear and these problems to face. I want to say, quite clearly, that I think it is very unwise indeed, and sometimes very unfair, to preach, from a long distance, to people whom we hardly know, the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven when we are, infact, not ourselves sure of it.
I should like to read a letter from the brother of a constituent of mine. He is engaged in work of social development in Tanganyika.
Dr. Morgan: Some of us have had hundreds of letters.
Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Member will allow me, I am trying, for the moment, to present the views of sincere and decent people who live in Africa and try to do a decent job. One paragraph starts:
"How is politics going? Africa seems to be enormously in the news these days, and we listen a good deal to the B.B.C. and are appalled by the mass of ill-informed comment on African affairs. Seriously, I wish to God someone could persuade people at home that Africans are not neat little bowler-hatted trade unionists catching the 8.13 to work every morning, no different from Europeans except that they have black faces."
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) may laugh, but the writer of this letter is serious and talks of serious things. He goes on:
"The really awful thing about Europe nowadays is the denial of the value of education and of 2,000 years of civilisation. It is literally true that the grandfathers of my staff were very much more backward than the ancient Britons: they had no wheel, no money, no tools, except bows and arrows and pointed sticks with which they scratched at the ground to till it, and the majority of them had not even reached the stage of being primitive agriculturists—they were nomadic cattle people, wandering from place to place until they had exhausted what little pasture there was. Can we expect their grandsons to be aware of democracy and self-government?"
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of that letter, but I think the comments made throughout it make plain the writer's views. I think, honestly and sincerely, that the views of these decent, honest people, our own people living in Africa, have been discounted, and that they themselves, their values and their way of life have very often been wantonly discredited by speeches from the other side of the House.
454
May I refer, briefly, to Kenya? Sir Philip Mitchell's dispatch has already been mentioned, and to suggest that the present disorder in Kenya is the result of anything other than a long, lingering sore, on which action has been long over-due and not taken, is wholly to misconstrue and wholly to mislead. The right hon. Member for Llanelly specifically mentioned the speech made by General Erskine, and, of course, mentioned it with approval. I should have thought that it would have been reasonably gracious of him to say who sent General Erskine there, and on whose authority General Erskine speaks. Is he speaking without the approval of the Colonial Secretary? Of course he is not. In using the words he did General Erskine was speaking with the entire approval and authority of the Colonial Secretary. Is not my right hon. Friend entitled to the benefit of expressions which the right hon. Gentleman otherwise finds laudable?
I am sorry that my remarks are perhaps somewhat disjointed, but I do not want to make a long speech. In regard to federation, my main point against the right hon. Gentleman, and the Opposition, is that his proposition has been so vapid and his whole policy so uncertain. At no stage in these various exchanges have we ever been told what he would have done. We have had pious expressions, but no promise of action whatever, and if Africans really feel happy and encouraged at the prospect of having such a lot of negations restored to the Colonial Office then I say that they are to be pitied.
One of the points which has always been uncertain in the extreme is whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he left the Colonial Office, was for or against federation. I believe that immense harm was done when the right hon. Gentleman changed his ground with such apparent abruptness. At least, seen from Africa, it was difficult to explain or understand how it was that his views had changed.
I should also like to refer to the incident which took place in the House the other day, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, blamed the Colonial Secretary for saying, "I demand an answer on the question of the Motion of censure." In fairness, cannot the right hon. Gentleman think what he would feel like in similar circumstances,

455
had he been subjected to the same maintained series of groundless attacks? Why, therefore, should not the right hon. Gentleman assume that perhaps the Colonial Secretary is as sensitive as he? Why should he think that the Colonial Secretary would not welcome, in some degree, some personal fairness from time to time?
It is my belief that the whole conduct of this series of attacks, led by the right hon. Gentleman, has been as venomous and vicious personally as it has been vacuous and vacillating in substance. When shall we really face facts and make decisions on our immense responsibilities in Africa—on these colossal problems? Is it that, forever, wishful thinking is to do duty for common sense, and sheer optimism to replace the determined, honest facing up to the problems which the right hon. Gentleman knows very well confront us?
I should like to echo the hope, expressed with such restraint by the Colonial Secretary this afternoon, that this debate may lead to a happier period in this House, when we can meet more calmly the real responsibilities which face us, admitting, as we must, that, in the interests of the races in Africa, we are committed to heavy responsibility there for many years to come. I say that those responsibilities, those causes, and even the people whom the right hon. Gentleman himself seeks to help, have been ill-served by the vacillation and uncertainty which is the only meal he has been able to offer.
I offer to the Colonial Secretary my own humble congratulations for the speech he made this afternoon—the second in the course of a week or so—defending a considerable record, expressing a hope for the future, and without attempting to give the right hon. Member for Llanelly even a tithe of what he really deserves.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: The House tonight is asked to express
"its grave disquiet at the handling by Her Majesty's Government of affairs in Africa."
That, put in direct language, means that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and is prepared to censure the Government. It is right that questions of that kind should be debated
456
by the House at the earliest moment, but I think there is a far more important question than the handling of affairs in Africa at the moment. It is a question not of whether this House in itself has confidence in the Government, but whether Africa has confidence in the Government—indeed, whether Africa has confidence in this House and in the people of Britain.
I would re-echo the words of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher). He said that this country has a record which is not only great but noble in its handling of affairs throughout the whole world and is beyond comparison with any other country. Sometimes one lets one's mind run, when considering some criticism of us, and one wonders what might have been the history of the world had some other people on the continent undertaken the tremendous task that this country undertook some 200 years ago. What other country would do what this House is doing now and what it has done from the days of Warren Hastings, who stood his trial in Westminster Hall, and hold an inquest on the conduct of the Minister responsible for the affairs of those people? We therefore have a very great tradition which we should cherish and which we desire to maintain.
The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly tried to analyse the position throughout Africa. We are accustomed to regard this century in which we are fated to live very rightly as the most extraordinary century in the long history of man. Amazing progress and great discoveries have been made. For example, there is the discovery which we were discussing only yesterday, television—that amazing new discovery which, as I said yesterday, will probably have a greater influence than anything else upon humanity and upon our knowledge of one another throughout the world. We have made extraordinary progress during the last 50 years. But is there any country in the world which has had to face changes so quickly as the Continent of Africa? It is not so long ago that an Englishman was lost for many years in the heart of Africa—Dr. Livingstone.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: A Scotsman.
Mr. Davies: And a Welshman was sent out to find him—a man who afterwards became a Member of this House,

457
and I had the honour of knowing him. He wrote about this mysterious continent known as darkest Africa. Look at the extraordinary impact there has been upon us with all our knowledge, training and education. But what is that compared with the impact that there must have been upon the African, north, south, east and west, and especially in the centre?
That being so, let us consider what has happened. Never has there been such a vast economic and social change as there has been in the last 50 years—in fact, really in the last 20 years—and there have been greater changes in Africa than anywhere else. Until we arrived there, the African only knew one form of government—by the chief, or the dictator, or whatever he was called. Then we came along and we worked alongside the chief, and the chiefs took their orders from us. But, at the same time, we have been doing our best to educate and train them in economics and health, and in disseminating knowledge so that they can learn how we live.
They formed their own local government, trade unions, and co-operative movements. Is it to be wondered, therefore, that there is a new consciousness throughout Africa, a new realisation of the inherent individual rights of the African, and a consciousness also of the fact that he is part of a bigger family? The ambitions of these people are now beginning to assert themselves and there is a desire to look after their own affairs. That is a point which must be emphasised.
Undoubtedly throughout Africa today there is a great cloud of anxiety. All over the place there are warning rumbles. Incidents are happening in East Africa, Central Africa and South Africa. Each is of a different kind, but there seems to be one common denominator. There is a new ambition, which is right, and a deep fear, which is wrong. There is a fear on the part of the African that now that he is realising his own position, his own individuality and his own right to look after his own affairs, nevertheless the white domination may continue; and there is a fear on the part of the white man, whatever country he comes from, that he will be deprived of all that hitherto he has owned, and that the
458
domination will pass out of his hands into the hands of the African.
I believe that those matters and the way in which they should be handled ought to receive our consideration now. Are we handling them properly? I do not think any Government can be blamed for the present position. Undoubtedly, there have been great evils. Land was taken from the Africans without any consideration for them in the slightest degree. Boundaries were made, in some cases right through the middle of a tribe. I had the good fortune to be in West Africa in 1938 and the beginning of 1939. In Paris it was arranged, without consulting anybody, that a line should be drawn through that part of Africa, and on one side the African was going to be turned into a Frenchman and on the other side he was to be guided by us. On one side, a third of a tribe had a chief, and on the other side two-thirds of the tribe were to be dealt with entirely differently. Those are evils which are persisting there today.
What am I to say about the Government's handling of this matter? I have often wished that there was a third Lobby in this House. This is one of those occasions when both the Government and the Labour Party are to blame. Self-government is gradually being given, certainly on the west coast of Africa—and one is delighted to see what is happening in Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and Gambia, and what is being done in the Sudan—but too much emphasis is put upon the economic and material advantages and too little attention is being paid to the personal side, and the desire of the individual. That is why I objected, right from the outset to Central African federation as the Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) both know.
It ill becomes the right hon. Member for Llanelly to throw all the blame upon the right hon. Gentleman who succeeded him in office. This question had been gone into before the war, when it was put on one side. It was the right hon. Member for Llanelly who resurrected it. He then appointed six Englishmen—at least, six people from Britain. They were first-class men who knew the conditions there, but not one of them was an African. When they reported, instead of considering the report privately, as a guide to himself, he published it. Can

459
it be doubted that that disturbed all the people in Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland?
Then, when the present Colonial Secretary came into office, he again put all the emphasis on the economic side and said, "This will be of very great advantage to these people," just at the time when they were becoming conscious of themselves and of their own rights, and realising that they had an inherent right to be consulted as to how they should be governed and who should govern them.
Now I turn to the most recent happenings in Uganda. I was deeply distressed that the Kabaka was taken forcibly out of his country. I cannot think of a more cruel punishment than to exile a man from his own country and people. It will be recollected that one of the greatest men in history, when given the choice of exile or death, preferred death to exile even among people who spoke the same language. He preferred death even to being exiled from his own city. That was the great, wise Socrates himself.
Everyone has a tremendous attachment to his own people and country, especially one who is, as I understand, one of a long line of kings or governors of his own people, knowing and understanding them. This morning we received the document published by the delegation from Buganda. The Kabaka's people still ask that he should return to them. I hope that a settlement can be arrived at to enable this man to return to his own people.
But no criticism can corns from the Labour Party with regard to this recent happening in Buganda, for who exiled Seretse and Tshekedi from their own people—simply because Seretse had committed the offence of marrying a white woman and Tshekedi had said that he wanted an inquiry into the question of leadership? I well remember endeavouring, as best I could at that time, to get debated in the House the question whetherTshekedi—who had committed no offence; no charge was brought against him—should be allowed to return to his country. I could not get that opportunity except with the assistance of the present Prime Minister. If it comes to throwing bricks at each other both parties are living in glass-houses.
460
I hope that more attention will be given to the personal or spiritual side of the matter, and the real desires of these people. There is no doubt that the economic side of the matter is important. It is vital that these people should have the means of living, and that we should inquire as to who occupies the land and provide for its better distribution among the people, but still more important is what happens to the people themselves.
I throw out this suggestion. These people are now conscious of their rights—information travelling as rapidly as it does—and are watching most anxiously what is happening in South Africa. They know all about the difficulties which have arisen in various parts of Africa. Has not the time now come when we might call an African conference, when the Africans might be consulted as to their own future? We are considering the question of a European federation. Why not consider, not a federation of Africa but the question whether the Africans themselves should have the main voice in their future and how that future should be conducted?
They have not been accustomed to managing their own affairs. We have taught them much about economic life. We have taught them a great deal about health. We have given them a certain amount of education, which is now being increased. But they still lack knowledge of the proper working of a democratic institution. We should go carefully in teaching them that. It is not that we deny them that right, but in the meantime, until the arrangement is working properly and they understand the importance of toleration towards each other, we should exercise, as we are in duty bound to do, a trusteeship over them all, so as to help and protect them.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is with very great pleasure that I take this opportunity of rising to speak following the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. On the last occasion when I spoke on matters relating to world affairs, it was he who followed me, and he was good enough to make some polite observations about my speech. I should now like to reciprocate that kindness, because if there is one thing that is true of him it is that we always hear from him an independent view of the

461
utmost integrity—and an independent view is one which can always be so interesting.
I agree with a great deal of what he said, but I undoubtedly differ in one respect. I require no third Lobby in this matter. Even there I shall be in some danger with regard to some of the observations which I want to make this evening, following what was said by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) on the question of the Suez Canal. It has been pointed out by several hon. Members that the Continent of Africa covers Morocco and the greater part of Egypt, and that the Suez Canal is, therefore, relevant to this debate. It is not only because it is relevant on that issue, but because it is fundamental to the considerations of the main issue, that I shall seek to deal with that subject fairly shortly when I come to it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), has said that the issue before the House tonight is whether Africa has confidence in this House. That is quite true, and the truth is well expressed. The second question posed by the right hon. and learned Member is this: if Africa has not go confidence in the House, whose fault is it? Can any of the blame be laid at the door of the Colonial Secretary? I am quite satisfied that no blame whatever can attach to him. Wherever I went on a very short trip I had over there recently I heard nothing but praise of him for both his tact and his courage in connection with the questions with which he was dealing.
Confidence depends first upon an assured future, and an assured future, in turn, depends upon the ability to get a job and upon being able to develop the resources of this vast Continent. In their first year the Government were busy dealing with the question of the balance of payments. In the second year they were dealing with increased production. In the third year I hope and trust that we shall go forward with the development of the Commonwealth and of its vast untapped resources, to a degree hitherto never known.
Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South): The Tories did not do it for 50 years.
Mr. Rees-Davies: What is the position with regard to the confidence of the people out there? The first grave matter—and it is a grave matter—is that there is a certain section, a small one, albeit, but, still, a section, of hon. Members opposite doing a great disservice to this country by propaganda which they spread. I say that quite deliberately, and I am not a person given to violent exaggeration. To continue that propaganda that is going out continuously from this House and elsewhere, seeking to set black against white, about race issues and the colour bar all the time, is no way to settle the issue.
The effect of that, in so far as there is an effect, is loss of confidence. I want to show how it comes about. In Buganda was a man, a King with a Great Council, the Lukiko. Buganda is the pivot of Uganda. I was recently passing through Entebbe and Kampala, and so far as Entebbe and Kampala are concerned they are the pivot of the whole of the Protectorate of Uganda. It was, obviously, quite impossible that there should be a separate Kingdom of Buganda set up, and that it should revert to a tribal existence. I thought that was quite unusually preposterous.
But why do hon. Members suppose that the King thought he could get away with it? Do they think one of the reasons may have been our attitude in the Sudan, next door? Do they think that the weakness and vacillation which has been shown in the past in that area may, perhaps, have been part of the contributory causes which led the Kabaka to believe that at the present time the Government of this country were so weak he would be able to get away with the demands he was putting forward? I believe so, and I have some ground for saying so.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is criticising the policy of the Government in regard to the Sudan?
Mr. Rees-Davies: I am coming to it, if the hon. Gentleman will give me time.
As for the Gold Coast I want to leave the question of confidence for a moment merely to say that there is there considerable confidence in the Government, but it is, of course, equally essential that

463
we should support the Gold Coast Government, and, what is more, that we should give the guidance which they will need for many years to come.
Let me give an example. I was very concerned on reading the "Daily Express" for Saturday, 12th December, that Mr. Joseph Adam Braimah, the Minister of Works, has apparently admitted being engaged in corruption in the Government and has, as a result, resigned, and has, by reason of his religious convictions as a Roman Catholic, made a detailed confession of the offences he had committed. He has made very serious allegations by suggesting that the Prime Minister, Mr. Nkrumah, has himself been involved.
I do not for one minute suggest that there is necessarily any truth whatever in the allegations, but I would urge the Government to treat this as a very serious matter which ought to be fully investigated, and, if there be truth in it, to see that any offenders are brought to trial, because the question of confidence is also part of the question of seeing justice is done, and justice can only be done if it can be seen fairly to be done in the public eye.
It is eminently desirable in the Middle East and in Africa, and, indeed, in the Far East, that we should not have undesirable aliens or others being permitted in those areas at a time when there is rapid development. That is most unsatisfactory. We may give certain people who are convicted criminals and others who will find—and, indeed, are finding in the Gold Coast—opportunities with new Ministers and new people to try to run affairs for their own benefit in that area. I urge the Government to take great care to see that they use their powers to see that undesirables do not come in at this stage of development.
I come now to Kenya. I speak particularly in this debate because I have been in close touch with members of the Kenya Legislative Assembly and on the question of why there is, so far as there is, any feeling of lack of confidence at the present time. I would remind the House, first of all, that a delegation from Kenya has been over here and asking for our support. This is a great opportunity for the Secretary of State to assist by gift or loan, and I greatly hope that they will receive that assistance because it is not
464
the fault of the European settlers there that the Mau Mau emergency has arisen. So far as Mau Mau is concerned, that is really something which should be borne by the United Kingdom, and regarded as an exceptional emergency, and I hope that perhaps something may be said on those lines.
On the question of confidence, I have here a letter written to me by Colonel Grogan, who, some hon. Members may remember, has been over 50 years a leader in Nairobi and who, in fact, walked afoot from Cape to Cairo. At any rate, he is one of the major leaders there, and in this case he speaks with great authority, though not necessarily for the Assembly, for many people out there. He says:
"We in Kenya, who played our small part in the last war with consequential recognition of the strategic key points in Northern and Eastern Africa, and regard ourselves as the garrison in this front-line outpost of the Western defences, view happenings in the Sudan and Egypt with grave alarm.
It is only 54 years since I personally was exploring the geographical Lacunae in Central Africa and the pagan area of the Sudan and the ultimate resources of the Nile in a study of the physical significance of the Treaties theoretically defining the European spheres of interest. The present situation has betrayed the pagan tribes of the Southern Sudan to their traditional predators in the North. These vast desolate areas, peopled by heterogeneous tribes of simple folk with genetic affinities to the tribes of Kenya and Uganda, have been retrieved from utter chaos and a long history of spoliation into an era of peace and security by a handful of British administrators and technical advisers.
The repercussions on our British East African tribes and general loss of British prestige here is considerable, apart from the all-important consideration of the strategic significance of Khartoum. The control of Khartoum is a dominant factor in prestige throughout the whole of North African Islam, and Khartoum is the special soundboard of the age-old pilgrim movement between West African Islam and Mecca.
Secondly, Khartoum is a vital and exclusive key point in East African air communications with the United Kingdom and with the West. It may be that Khartoum, in this air age, will prove to be of greater strategic significance in the future even than the Suez Canal."
In so far as there is any feeling of lack of confidence out there, so far as the people of the Sudan and, I believe, Asian peoples, are concerned, it is not in any way to be laid at the door of the Colonial Secretary. They regard him as a strong leader who will support them in this

465
matter, but the fault lies with the mounting inanity of certain advisers at the Foreign Office, and I want to turn to consideration of that field.
The question of Egypt has for a long time past been receiving the very close attention of most distinguished Members of my party and of the House. I am a very junior Member. I am almost always in disagreement with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), as is natural, and, indeed, sometimes I cannot regard his views as being serious. At no time have I understood the Government's proposals to be what he described them to be—the reasonable and complete evacuation of the Suez Canal Zone, the only alternative according to the right hon. Gentleman, being to occupy Cairo and Alexandria. Those statements are preposterous.
In the first place, we cannot possibly seek to continue to enter into agreements with men who, virtually, are Nazis and cannot be trusted to keep their word. There is no difference between General Neguib and his dancing major, on the one hand, and Hitler and Goebbels, on the other. The propaganda which is being thrown out by Neguib is similar in style. To enter into an agreement with him and his Government, who have obtained powers by a pütsch or a coup ďétat—we have no English word for it—an agreement which is not worth the paper it is written on, would, in my opinion, be fatal to the psychological issues involved and to the prestige of this country and would lead to the very lack of confidence to which this Motion seeks to draw the attention of the House. It is no use entering into an agreement unless we know that the obligations may be maintained on both sides. Equally, we must adhere to the principle of not negotiating under pressure—and at present we are under pressure.
May I say a few words about the constitutional position, which is a subject about which I have taken some care. I would draw attention first to Articles 8 and 16 of the Treaty of Alliance of 1936. Article 8 reads:
"In view of the fact that the Suez Canal, whilst being an integral part of Egypt, is a universal means of communication and also an essential means of communication between the different parts of the British Empire, His Majesty the King of Egypt, until such time as the High Contracting Parties agree that the
466
Egyptian Army is in a position to ensure by its own resources the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Canal, authorises His Majesty The King and Emperor to station forces in Egyptian territory in the vicinity of the Canal."
Article 8 further reads:
"It is understood that at the end of the period of 20 years…the question whether the presence of British forces is no longer necessary owing to the fact that the Egyptian Army is in a position to ensure by its own resources the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Canal may, if the High Contracting Parties do not agree thereon, be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for decision.…"
May I point out what has never been stressed in this country—that there is no question whatever of leaving the Zone in 1956. The position is perfectly plain and continues as long as the entire security of the navigation of the Canal is not guaranteed by the Egyptians.
Let us see how we are to meet this position. We meet it, first, at the present time, by withdrawing from negotiations and by withdrawing the offer, if any, which has been put forward, until the position becomes clearer. In the New Year we can put forward sensible proposals which can be ensured and can be effectively carried out. They can be effectively carried out only if we have the fighting force there to carry them out when Neguib breaks his word, as he will if he can.
The principle which I and many of my colleagues have put forward is that, first of all, Britain should retain in the Canal Zone bases, airfields and port facilities with sufficient British personnel to maintain and to operate them. Britain should retain in the Canal Zone fighting units sufficiently strong to ensure the safe landing of further forces, should the necessity, of which Britain must be the sole judge, arise. It is imperative that Her Majesty's Government should withdraw from the negotiations with Egypt immediately and withdraw categorically the terms put forward. Next year negotiations might properly be resumed with the above terms as minimum requirements. The reduction of the Canal Zone to a garrison will enable the reduction of military forces from 80,000 to the neighbourhood of about 10,000 and the reduction in cost would be very considerable.
Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I gather from the hon. Gentleman's arguments that he thinks that the presence of fighting British troops is essential to keep the Canal open. We have had 80,000 there during the time the Government have been in power. Will he tell us why their presence has not enabled us to get oil to Haifa or to prevent the Egyptians from blockading the Canal?
Mr. Rees-Davies: In making that interjection the hon. Gentleman has opened up a matter which would take too long to discuss, otherwise I would deal with it. I shall try to deal with it in due course, possibly elsewhere, but I have only one minute to go now and I have not time to discuss it.
The psychological issues involved are the prime reasons. The question of our prestige in Africa is one of immense importance and, in my opinion such questions outweigh the military and economic issues which arise in Egypt—and they are directly relevant in this debate. We believe, and I am sure we are right, that we could cut down the size of the Canal Zone commitments very considerably. There are a large number of installations which are useless.
We do not need the whole of the length of the base, the many miles of it. By securing a garrison based in a similar way to Gibraltar we can reduce the effective strength to one effective division of about 10,000 men, the number before the war. We can reduce the cost of £50 million. As a result of that policy we shall ensure that we do not have an avalanche of claims throughout the Mediterranean—Cyprus for the Cypriots, Malta for the Maltese, Gibraltar for the Spaniards, and so on, throughout the Mediterranean and the rest of the world.
The Colonial Secretary is a man of dynamic power and ability, and that is needed in these times. He is just the man we need to deal with the development of the Continent of Africa. He has the support of the settlers and the people there, and if we end a lot of this misleading propaganda from some hon. Members opposite we shall have peace. I hope I have now answered the questions of the Leader of the Liberal Party.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. John Dugdale: We have just listened to a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I should like him for a moment to turn his attention to the terms of the Motion which we are discussing. It says specifically:
"That this House expresses its grave disquiet at the handling by Her Majesty's Government of affairs in Africa."
It does not say the Colonial Secretary in particular; it states "Her Majesty's Government." After his speech, can the hon. Gentleman honestly go into the Lobby with the Government in support of their handling of African affairs? I cannot see how he can possibly do so.
Mr. Rees-Davies: I deliberately left the matter because I invited the question. Sometimes members of the Bar do that. My answer is briefly, "Yes, of course," because the whole of this debate has been entirely directed to Africa, as in fact it was looked at by hon. Members opposite. They did not take into the smallest consideration the extreme northern part of Africa, Egypt, and the only part that I view with concern is the serious issue relating to the Suez Canal. As to 99 per cent. of the balance, we on this side of the House are absolutely satisfied with the actions of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinion and to follow any course he considers right. It would appear to me to be very curious, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) specifically referred to the Sudan and made a number of references to it. It may be referred to by other hon. Members, and I may refer to it myself. It is certainly a part of Africa, and so far as it is part of Africa—and, the hon. Member would agree, an important part of Africa—I still fail to see how he can go into the Lobby with the Government supporting an African policy with part of which he disagrees so profoundly. I did not, however, rise to speak about the hon. Member's speech except to make that comment.
The Secretary of State has spoken of the impact of the West upon Africa. He spoke of its importance, and he said that it was a large and important subject going

469
far beyond any little local incidents that might be cropping up. I want to deal with one particular part of that contact, the contact of Western civilisation with East and Central Africa. What have we got there? We have a simple people, a people who for years, as the Secretary of State himself said, have had no experience of Western civilisation and who have found themselves suddenly confronted with it—a people who are bewildered and puzzled, and many of whom, no doubt, are very frightened. The reason we are having this debate is that we on this side of the House differ profoundly from Members on the other side as to how we should handle these people. That is the problem. How should they be handled?
During the time that we on this side were in power—during the years between 1945 and 1952—we gave to these people sympathy, and not only sympathy but a very practical sympathy. We gave them, for instance, such important things for people growing up in the Western world as trade unions, co-operative societies and factory Acts. These were things which they had never had before and would not have had had we not given them. They were things, I venture to say, which the present Government would never have given them had they been in power at that time. We did give them, and as a result of that there was established, when we left office, the foundation of confidence in the British Government.
We are discussing today whether the Africans still have or do not have that confidence in the British Government. The fundamental difference between our two policies may, I think, be summed up in this way. We believe that while Africa can be developed in the interest of all races in Africa—and we realise, just as the Government do, that there are different races, that it is not a single racial problem but a problem of how to adjust different races—the race there which has to be considered first is the race which is the overwhelming majority of its people, namely, the African people. Hon. Members opposite say that the race which has to be considered first is the race which has the least people there—the white people. That is the fundamental difference.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson)The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson) indicated dissent.
Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I have no doubt that when he replies he will mention that point. That is, I think, the basic difference between our two sides. That fact has been illustrated by the actions of the Colonial Secretary. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I do not intend to attack him personally. I do not see why he should consider that every attack on his administration is a personal attack. Does he think that we are going to say day after day how wonderful he is? Surely he must realise in that responsible position, being Minister in charge of African affairs, that he is naturally the target for any criticism there may be. We realise fully that he is not the only person responsible, but that it is the responsibility of the whole Government.
The people of Africa have found themselves time and time again scorned by the right hon. Gentleman. In the case of Central Africa, he did not even bother to consult them. He saw a few people from time to time, but when it came to the point the only views he considered were the views of the white people there, and he did not bother to consult the overwhelming mass of the African people. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman is not the only one. The Africans cannot forget that the present Prime Minister is the greatest enemy of freedom that the Indian people have ever known. They believe that if he holds these views about India, it is only natural that he will hold these views, and impress these views upon his Government, about Africa.
We heard the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in his speech today deal very briefly with affairs in Uganda. I am sorry he is not here because I am afraid that I must say one thing about him. He is usually a very brave man indeed. I would never before have thought that he could be guilty of anything resembling cowardice, but I think that the way in which he hid behind the statement contained in a telegram received from the Governor was not the bravest action he has performed in recent years, to put it no lower than that.
He said, in effect, that the Governor had stated that it was not due to his speech that there had been this difference of opinion with the Kabaka. It was not

471
due to his speech that this problem had arisen. We feel that it was his speech more than anything else which precipitated the crisis in Uganda. Those of us who know the Kabaka know him as a quiet, unassuming, charming young man, not the least likely to become excited without reason. There are many who do get excited without reason—Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen as well as Africans—but the Kabaka is not amongst them. Yet he was so deeply moved that he faced banishment. Why did that happen?
It happened because of the Secretary of State's speech. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred to the fact that he had set a match to affairs in Uganda. I would say that he is the greatest incendiarist since Nero. He has managed to do something which people would have thought to be impossible there, not only to the Kabaka but to a country which all who have visited it know to be a profoundly peaceful country.
Anyone who has been to Kenya and gone across the border to Uganda can at once sense the difference. Of course, there have been disturbances in Uganda from time to time, but, compared with Kenya, the whole atmosphere is one of peace. The sense of strain and friction between races which exists in Kenya is entirely absent in Uganda. Yet in this most peaceful of all the East African and Central African Colonies, the Secretary of State has managed to start a great conflagration. That is one of the things, among many, for which we blame him.
Personally, I have not yet decided in my own mind whether the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a mistake, in which case it shows that he does not know very clearly how to use his words and the affect his words will have on African people, or whether in fact it was deliberate, whether in fact it was simply letting the cat out of the bag, and starting what he hoped would be a movement towards this East African federation—and that is what the Africans fear.
Many Africans fear, and fear deeply, that the Secretary of State supports the organisation which, I believe, is known as the Capricorn Society, which wants to have a great federation stretching from the Limpopo up to the borders of the
472
Sudan, dominated primarily by the white people there. That is what the Africans, including the people of Uganda, are frightened of, and that is why the Kabaka took the action that he did.
I think that the form of that action was quite wrong. I do not think that there could be a separate state of Buganda in the middle of Uganda—that is quite impossible as a practical proposition; but I understand what made the Kabaka want to do it. He wanted to opt out of what he thought would be this new East African federation, which, he thought, the Secretary of State showed by his speech that he wanted to see created.
The policy of the Government is not only morally wrong, but wrong in its practical results. In Kenya, as a result of the action of the Government, we find that a country which, when this Government came into power was at peace, is now at war. There has been a statement by the Colonial Secretary in which he said that £6million was to be demanded of the British taxpayer as the result of this war. No doubt many other sums are involved also, and these and the £6 million are to be taken from the British taxpayer as the result of the policies which the Government have pursued in Kenya. There is the cost of all the extra military establishments which would not have been there otherwise. There is the cost, too, of the men who have been standing by waiting, so it seems, to go into Uganda.
It may be that the newspapers are wrong, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will let us know when he replies, but the papers have informed us that a regiment was being held ready in Kenya and had been taken off its work in order to stand by ready for action should it have to go to Uganda. Has the Colonial Secretary often consulted his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War? What is the position today of the Secretary of State for War? He gets call after call from his right hon. Friend to send troops to Kenya, to Uganda, and here, there and everywhere, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy. It has cost the country much in cash and it has cost the Army much in strain.
The Colonial Secretary in his speech said, "We must hand on a firmer foundation to our successors"; that was the tenor of the whole speech. We of the

473
Labour Party gave our successors a firm foundation, firmer than it had been for many years. We gave them a foundation built on confidence and on trust, but this Government have dispensed with that foundation and have replaced it instead with a foundation built on fear, anxiety and mistrust.
It is for those reasons that today we condemn the Government, and we are not ashamed of doing so. I do not think it is wrong that colonial affairs should be brought into party politics. We are quite certain that had we made any mistakes in our Government, the Conservative Party, had they been in opposition, would at once have tabled such a Motion. There is a fundamental differance between the two parties on colonial policy, and it is right that those differences should be brought forward tonight so that all shall see them.
7.55 p.m.
Captain Richard Pilkington: The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) concluded his remarks by saying that in his opinion it was quite right that party politics should be brought into colonial and imperial affairs. He would be right in saying that that was the main difference between our two parties rather than the difference which he suggests at the beginning of his speech.
The difference which the right hon. Member suggested was that, so far as Africa was concerned, his party was primarily concerned with the welfare of the Africans and we on this side were concerned primarily with the welfare of the white population. That is complete nonsense. We do not differentiate between the races when we are furthering the well-being of any State or community in Africa. We consider that the various parts and peoples, whether African, European or Asian, are all interdependent, and we try to aim at the welfare of the community as a whole.
The right hon. Member said that it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies who had started what he called the great conflagration in Uganda. Then he spoilt the whole of his case by admitting that from time to time there had been trouble there in the past. Of course, this is one of those times. When we are responsible for so many different communities, as we
474
are in Africa, at so many different stages of civilisation, it is inevitable that from time to time trouble will occur. The whole continent can be grateful that we have in the Colonial Secretary a man who is firm and wise in his handling of these things.
When this debate was first announced in the House, I asked whether it could cover the fact that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), as reported in the newspapers, was a representative of a section of the party opposite which was in favour of the liquidation of the British Empire. Some of his hon. Friends jumped up and defended him, as they had a perfect right to do. I want to make it clear now that it was not so much an attack upon the right hon. Member as a desire to know whether there was, in fact, a section of the party opposite which was in favour of the liquidation of the British Empire.
Mr. Sorensen: Would the hon. and gallant Member not agree that the Conservative Party have agreed with the liquidation of the Empire in India and Pakistan?
Captain Pilkington: One of the leading statesmen in the party opposite, the late Sir Stafford Cripps, first gave currency to the phrase when he said, some time before the war, that the Socialist Party was in favour of the liquidation of the British Empire. That phrase has lived and has been reproduced in an Egyptian paper quite recently. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) referred this afternoon to that phrase and explained it away by saying that what was meant was not "liquidation," but "transformation"; and I imagine that is what the hon. Member also is trying to suggest. If so, why did the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale not use the word "transform" instead of "liquidate"? In the common understanding of the word, "liquidate" means one thing and "transform" means another.
Mr. Sorensen: Surely, if an Empire disappears, as it has done in India and Pakistan, that is liquidation, and transformation is merely the positive side of liquidation.
Captain Pilkington: No. I think this matter ought to be pursued to the full. I should like to think that the interpretation of the word "liquidation" meant

475
"transformation," but that is not the case. When the late Sir Stafford Cripps was challenged on this point, in 1948, he said:
"Certainly, I stand by what I said, and it is what we have done in India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma."
He gave the whole of his case away when he mentioned Burma, because for him, apparently, it did not matter whether these States, which had been given self-government, were outside the Commonwealth or inside it.
I say that he gave the whole of his case away when he classed Burma with those other States which had had complete self-government within the Commonwealth, and I say that we have a right to know today whether there is still a section of the Labour Party, and how big it is, which desires to see the liquidation of the British Empire in the same way as has happened in Burma. If the answer be "no" I would rejoice, because I regret very much that what we have been discussing this afternoon has been tinged to such an extent with party politics.
I do not want to keep the House long, but I should like to say a word about Suez. We shall shortly be engaged in considering an arrangement to replace that made in 1936 with Egypt. That arrangement was praised, at that time, on all sides of the House. Indeed, the "Daily Express" of that date appeared with a headline referring to the then Foreign Secretary in these words: "Eden praised by all sides." I should like to think that the same will apply when the new arrangement comes up for consideration. The vindication of that Treaty of 1936 came three years later when, in the task with which we were confronted, we had the good will of the Egyptian nation as a whole. Otherwise, we should have found it very much more difficult to do the things that we had to do at that time.
Mr. M. Follick: We never had the good will of the Egyptians.
Captain Pilkington: We did have the good will of the Egyptian nation as a whole while we were fighting on that front.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: To get the record clear, and to see that there is no exaggeration either way, would not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that when Nahas Pasha became Prime
476
Minister it was following the arrival at King Farouk's palace of British tanks?
Captain Pilkington: That is perfectly true. I thought it possible that that point might be made, but in the working of the base and in the hinterland behind the lines we had the good will of hundreds of thousands of Egyptians. That was the point I was making, and I chose my words with care. I said "the Egyptian nation as a whole," and I meant that.
We have to recognise that since that time the Egyptian nation has moved on. It is no doubt an unfortunate thing, but it is a fact, that when we have to deal with the evolution of a young nation there is very often an accompanying inferiority complex. That is one of the factors we have to take into account today when we try to get a new arrangement.
It would, no doubt, have been much better if we could have got full and equal co-operation with the Egyptian people in making a safe, working base to protect what is essentially an international waterway. We have not got that co-operation, and unless we take into account the feelings of the Egyptian people as they are and not as we should like them to be, we shall find it very difficult to get any sort of satisfactory arrangement. It was Mazzini who said long ago that nationalism was a necessary prelude to internationalism. In this country we do not mind that the Americans are on our soil or that we have American airfields and bases here, but, unfortunately, the Egyptians do mind that there are bases of any other nationality upon their soil, and I say that we must take that into account.
We are, of course, speaking without the full knowledge of what the agreement is to contain for it is not actually before us, and we have to see it before we can pronounce judgment. I, at any rate, very much hope that it will be possible to find a modus vivendi by which both nations can co-operate together for the good of each and the good of all.
Finally, one word about the colonial aspect, which has been extensively dealt with in this debate. The Opposition have repeatedly laid stress upon the fact that there is a lot of trouble in Africa at present. How could it be otherwise when it is such a vast continent, the youngest in development, with the various communi-

477
ties all in the early stages of evolution? From time to time there is bound to be trouble.
It is always difficult, when trying to help communities to evolve and grow, to say exactly when a particular rung of the ladder has been reached. Inevitably, some people will say that it should be reached a little earlier and others a little later. I do not quarrel with the fact that we in this House have an unsleeping consciousness about all the things that are done in Africa. We have an immense responsibility there. It is not a bad thing to have an unsleeping eye, watching all the time what is happening.
We must remember that we substituted in Africa our own responsibility, and that that took the place of almost daily practices of things besides which Mau Mau is nothing at all. Bloody practices and wars were going on habitually between the tribes. We have established a framework of law and order within which real development can take place.
Besides this Parliamentary watchfulness we can indeed, be grateful for the fact that at present we have a Colonial Secretary who is proving not only wise, but strong. He comes in, I know, for a lot of attack from hon. Members opposite, and I can perhaps illustrate the situation by quoting the old French proverb: "cet animal est méchant, il se defend". If I may extend what the Prime Minister said on one occasion, for the benefit of any old Etonians or any old Harrovians, that, translated, means "This animal is wicked, he defends himself."
Mr. Follick: He is vicious.
Captain Pilkington: My right hon. Friend has, in fact, shown how well he can defend himself.
We have a duty in Africa which is best described by the word "trusteeship" and when criticism gets too strong I would commend some lines written in the last century:
"Pray God our greatness may not fail
Thro' craven fears of being great."
We have no reason to be ashamed of what we have already done in Africa. At one time or another we have been responsible for the whole of Africa on one side from the north to the south, and in that vast area we have set up an independent Egypt, we have freed Abysinnia and we have set up the Union in the
478
South. It is the seething masses of people within those three points which we are now trying to help.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that, when we have been such great beneficiaries to Africa, it is a little odd that suddenly, in the last two years, we should get votes of no confidence in the Sudan, in Kenya and in Nyasaland?
Captain Pilkington: I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to re-read my speech tomorrow. I fully answered that criticism and I shall not spend any more time on it now.
I conclude by saying that I wish that party politics could have been kept out of this debate, and that I believe that the country as a whole is unitedly behind my right hon. Friend in his handling of our affairs.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: In the short time at my disposal I do not wish to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington), except to say that in his reference to imperialism he seemed to me to get lost. However, I venture to point out that when we speak of liquidation we mean that we desire something to disappear, and in fact imperialism has disappeared in Burma, in Ceylon, in Pakistan and in India, and I understand that the Conservative Party acquiesced in that fact. So the idea of the liquidation of what was originally the largest portion of the British Empire is an accomplished fact. In its place we have a Commonwealth, a much superior conception, and it is for that purpose we on this side of the House are working in regard to our Colonies, and I understand that the Colonial Secretary is working as well.
Captain Pilkington: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but does he not see that the use of the word "liquidation" by the Egyptians has a completely different connotation from the one he is seeking to impose on it?
Mr. Sorensen: I am giving the right connotation. I am pointing out that it is a part of our discussion because the Colonial Secretary, in his quite effective speech this afternoon, made it clear that he and his party were pledged to economic progress and to political advance. The logical consummation of that is un-

479
doubtedly that ultimately present colonial peoples will attain the same status as has been attained by the other nations I have named. To that extent, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is anticipating and preparing for a day when there will no longer be 80 million subject peoples, when they will be free citizens of free countries, able themselves to decide whether to remain, as I hope they will, in association with other partners of the Commonwealth or to go outside.
I mention that because it is encouraging to find the implicit assurance given today by the Colonial Secretary that this is his purpose. I welcome his plea and that of other hon. Members, including that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that we should try to make this a non-partisan question. Certainly, if we can give the assurance to colonial peoples everywhere that the goal is complete freedom, and that it has the endorsement of all parties in this country, that is likely to be much more effective than if we leave them with the impression that they have only one or possibly two parties on their side.
So I am delighted that we have had this assurance, and that I shall be able to say to my colonial friends that, however they may criticise one or other of the parties in regard to speed or method, they can be sure that all parties are now agreed that the ultimate goal is entire emancipation from any kind of imperial domination, and that this will carry with it their right, when they attain that status, to please themselves whether they shall remain inside or go outside the Commonwealth.
But if we intend to make any qualification, that will make nonsense of our assertion. It is only when it is quite clear that freedom means the right to disagree with others and to take any course that it has any meaning. We have only to go to any Indian or Pakistani or Burman or Ceylonese—
Mr. Follick: Singalese.
Mr. Sorensen: It is not Singalese, it is Ceylonese—and ask whether they belong to the British Empire and they will repudiate emphatically any such idea.
Although great advance has been made at the present time as compared with the
480
past, there are still those who hanker after the bad old days and still think that, although we must be philanthropic and benevolent in a patronising way, we must so do it with only that amount of speed and method which will enable many of the colonial areas to be under our direction and, if necessary, under our command.
We have to give up that assumption entirely. Although I do not want to labour the point, undoubtedly one of the fears that is affecting many parts of the Colonies today is the fear that what has happened in Central Africa will spread elsewhere. I am not saying that they are right or wrong. I am trying to be objective. I fully recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe in the principle of Central African federation. I will go further and say that in principle I think federation is an excellent idea. For instance, I want to see the federation of the Caribbean Colonies. One day I should like to see a federation of East and West Africa, not only of the British Colonies but of other Colonies as well that are not under our immediate control.
However, it is one thing to recognise the value of federation, whether for colonial or other peoples, and quite another thing altogether to say, "Because we decide this is good, although we may listen to what you have to say, in the last resort we shall brush your alleged prejudices entirely to one side." That is where the damage has been done. Let us admit completely that Central African federation has its economic and political merits. Of course we have considered the case.
We know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) discussed the principle of federation with others at Victoria Falls some years ago but it is unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to make out that we are responsible for the rest of the business. All we did was to say, "Here is an idea, in itself good. Let us confer together to see how far we can implement it." But it was made plain from the beginning that however detrimental it might seem to the Africans themselves, however foolish they might be, however prejudiced they might be, in the last resort we would see to it that we did not impose upon them that which we may have thought intrinsically good.

481
I can understand many hon. Members of this House feeling impatient at this attitude and saying that because it is intrinsically sound and good we should impose it and brush to one side all fears and prejudices; in fact, there are some of my own colleagues who take that point of view. I think they are wrong and we are now seeing the consequences of trying to impose what may be an inherently good principle. We are seeing its effects on Nyasaland, a relatively peaceful Protectorate, to which I shall refer briefly in a few minutes. We see how this effect has spread out into Uganda. We have heard the Colonial Secretary say more than once in this House that he has tried to dispose of the unfortunate effect of his after-dinner speech, when he referred to the possibility of an East African federation, and that the Kabaka had been thoroughly satisfied.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: With respect, is it not the case with regard to Central African federation that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that African opinion would be consulted, but it was never a point that if the Africans did not agree with it, it would not go through.
Mr. Sorensen: I remember the word "consult" was used. I made some inquiries on the subject and I believe spoke in the House to emphasise that we must not interpret "consult" as merely getting their opinion, but must also look upon it as meaning that there must be agreement. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly and my party made it clear that "consult" would be interpreted not in that narrow, constricted, negative form but in the sense of agreement. Our actions have proved that point.
I appreciate the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that on the point to which I referred the Kabaka was thoroughly satisfied. But that is not really the basic point. The basic point is that the damage had been done. The Kabaka may have been satisfied, but the psychological momentum of the statement had already done its work. If one talks to anyone from Buganda or Uganda one finds that that is so, and the right hon. Gentleman must know it to be so. Perhaps he now realises that it was a very unfortunate reference to make. Even if he thought it, he should not have said
482
it, although with his characteristic courage he might have done so for that reason. At all events, the damage had been done, and there is a genuine fear on the part of Colonials, not only in Uganda but elsewhere, that it is merely a question of time before we attempt to do elsewhere what we have done in Central Africa.
That makes clear how necessary it is when dealing with the awakening of colonial and African peoples that we should not fall back on merely constitutional defence or merely doing legalistically the correct thing. We must do far more than that. We must get under the surface to find out the emotional and moral significance of the disturbances which are taking place. If we look beneath the vehemence of many colonial peoples we shall find that they are clumsily or crudely striving to emphasise the significance of status. That is why I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends who suggest that the trouble in Kenya is merely over the wretched social conditions which exist there. Those conditions are a most important factor, but another factor is undoubtedly the sense of the significance of the individual. Maybe at first it is more or less unconscious imitation of the significance attached to a personality when it has a white skin, but it is there all the same.
Attempts are sometimes made to suggest that all the troubles in certain Colonies are due to agitators. That is not true. I grant that it is partly true, but why should we be ashamed of agitation? Any hon. Member who speaks in this House is agitating, sometimes more visibly than others. Every person with creative ideas who speaks on behalf of the unvocal and the bewildered is an agitator. We owe a great debt to-such agitators. We owe a great debt to the British agitators who were the first to cry out on behalf of the dumb millions.
That is why I say that, if we could have a little more perception, imagination and human generosity, we should get behind the extravagant expressions of bewilderment and resentment which are made. We should not, of course, condone or support violence, because violence at all times defeats the end towards which it is directed, and we

483
should appreciate that violence itself is often a by-product of arrogance. In the last resort, arrogance, pride and contempt, even though they are less obvious and cogent, may be just as vicious as violence, even though they may not have the same active expression.
I want to apply this more precisely to an aspect which has not been touched upon except in passing, and that is the issue of Nyasaland. Nyasaland was a relatively quiet country. There were disturbances from time to time, but the work of the missionaries had a very great tranquillising effect. Any who have spoken to the indigenous Christians there—however simple their faith may be, it is a very real one—know that they feel a deep sense of indebtedness to the early Christian missionaries and to the missionaries who are there now. It is most unfortunate that as recently as last September disturbances in Nyasaland were attributed to the Nyasaland Congress and to agitators emanating from that body. That is shallow and misleading. We should look beneath the surface, for then we should know that one of the reasons there have been disturbances in Nyasaland is the admittedly difficult and complex question of the land.
In the Shire Highlands about 500 white people own about 1 million acres of land—which they are farming well—on which some 200,000 Africans are working. However, on the other hand, about 500,000 Africans are working on 1½million acres of land. I am not saying that there may not be some justification for the disparity in the division of the land, but I know that the reasons for the disturbances in Nyasaland in relation to the Shire Highlands have been land hunger, the feeling that the land now being used by the 500 white settlers does not really belong to them and that, although they have rights of occupation, they have no rights of ownership, and also the feeling—I do not say that it is a necessarily justifiable feeling—that the Africans have not been able to get a square deal.
The disturbances which have arisen have been aggravated by the emotional backwash of what has happened in Central Africa. The Africans feel, rightly or wrongly, that their Protectorate will be swamped by the domination of a minority
484
of whites in Nyasaland. It is no good saying that the Africans are foolish and that we will not treat with them, or that we know what is good for them and that their prejudice must be overborne. We have to understand the deeper reasons agitating those people in Nyasaland, and, indeed, elsewhere.
To return to the subject of the land, it must be something very serious to cause disturbances which have led to the death of 11 Africans in Nyasaland in the last few months. I want to know why a more positive attempt has not been made to deal with the question. There was an inquiry and we have had its report, but it touches only the beginning of the disturbances. I have read the report from beginning to end, but I could find no reference at all to the later events which caused the death of 11 people.
Here is an opportunity for the Colonial Secretary to show that he is consistent in what he professes. He should send out to Nyasaland an impartial judicial inquiry to investigate not merely the circumstances leading to the death of the 11, but also the whole question of land tenure, for this would create practical confidence, to the material benefit of the Africans, as well as, one hopes, to their political satisfaction.
Let us also remember that nearby there is another area which is also disturbed. I do not propose to go into the merits or demerits of the exile of Seretse and Tshekedi Khama, though I did what I could at the time to bring them together and to achieve a peaceful solution. What I do ask now is whether, in these days when some imaginative action is required in order to counterbalance so much that is deleterious and dangerous, it would not be possible to inquire whether Seretse Khama is not prepared to go back to Bechuanaland as a private person? A good many people think it right that Seretse should return and might engage in ordinary civil pursuits, both professional and political, with skill and wisdom, but without reoccupying the chieftainship.
I have reason to believe that he will be prepared to go back, and, in these days of often unnecessary exile—because Seretse Khama's exile was unnecessary, just as I think the Kabaka's exile was unnecessary—it is a small step to take when considered against the great moral and psychological effect which we might bring

485
about. By reversing the process, not only by inviting the Kabaka to go back, but also Seretse Khama and any other such representatives of their people, we might give some sign that we do appreciate that the feelings, no matter how unfounded we think they may be, which Africans have are genuine feelings which we wish to treat with respect.
I close by saying that the picture is not all black. It is quite true that, in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, there are promising signs, and what has been done in those countries I am sure can be done elsewhere. The peoples of Uganda, Kenya and Central Africa include a tiny minority of whites, a large minority of browns and certainly a majority of blacks, if that is not an unfortunate description, but there is a difference in their status. The complex problem can be resolved only by promoting the essential and ultimate human equality of them all.
There is an African consciousness developing, just as, in this Continent of ours, although there is a vast difference between the Scandinavian and the Latin countries or between France and ourselves, there is a European consciousness. Because of that, I feel that, while we have on one side the great encouragement of what is taking place in the Gold Coast and Nigeria, we should give some sign to the whole of Africa of the policy we are striving to fulfil. There are many helpful factors in our favour, and it is up to the Colonial Secretary, who is responsible on behalf of the Government, to try to reverse a less helpful process, and, even if it means some slight loss of face, to put that on one side as of much less importance than the great contribution it will make towards recovering the confidence which we are in danger of losing.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Archer Baldwin: I agree with the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) when he says that the picture is not as black as it is sometimes painted. I think it is very unfortunate that so many speakers in this debate are speaking without more practical and up-to-date knowledge of the position in the Territories named than they seem to possess. It seems unfortunate to me that four hon. Members on the opposite benches who have recently been to Africa, who spent quite an amount of time in East and Central Africa and who have expressed their views outside this House
486
in no uncertain terms, have been kept out of this debate. [HON MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] It is unfortunate that they have not spoken, for they have seen things for themselves, and they could have made a useful contribution to the debate.
Mr. Sorensen: On a point of order. Is it not rather reflecting on the Chair to suggest that hon. Members have been kept out of the debate? Is it not also true that those hon. Members who have come back from Kenya in recent months have spoken many times in the House in the past few weeks?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member's sentence may have many meanings, but I did not understand it to refer to the Chair at all.
Mr. Baldwin: I am not referring to the Chair at all. These four hon. Members were here for the early part of this debate, and one is forced to the conclusion that representations must have been made to them that they should not take part in it. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] Very well, that is my impression, right or wrong.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I do not want to interfere in other people's squabbles, but when an hon. Member says that representations must have been made as a result of which certain persons have been kept out of the debate, can that be anything other than a reflection on the selection of speakers by the Chair?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member made no reference to whom the representations were made or by whom they are made.
Mr. Baldwin: I will proceed to something else. One can form one's own conclusions quite fairly when one knows the circumstances and what is going on. For those who are not politicians but who study the problem of Africa the question must arise why this debate was originated. They must wonder whether the debate will do good or ill to that great Continent of Africa which is in a state of transition. I think they could only come to the conclusion that the debate has been originated to make a personal and vicious attack upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

487
It is extremely unfortunate that that should have been done. If what has been said in this House had remained for the newspapers of this country, no harm might have been done. We have to remember that the statements that have been made in this House this afternoon will be broadcast throughout all the African papers and distorted to stir up some of the agitation which is in such a dangerous state at the present time. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend will feel hurt. He has had so many of these attacks that he must be getting fairly immune. It will make no difference to his prestige with us on this side of the House. The unfortunate thing about these debates is that they encourage the extremists on both sides in Africa, whether white or black. It is unfortunate that our debates should have that effect.
I propose to see what substance there is in the allegations that have been made. After the very devastating reply which the Colonial Secretary made in the debate on Uganda, I should have thought it would have been sufficient to stop any further criticism of what he did there. All I can say is that, knowing the Governor, I cannot conceive that he would have made any other recommendations than he has done to the Colonial Secretary, who has accepted his advice. If the Colonial Secretary had done something with which Sir Andrew Cohen did not agree, I know Sir Andrew sufficiently well to be sure that he would not have retained his office for five minutes.
Now let me say something about Kenya. Very extreme things have been said about the settlers and the Europeans in Kenya. Those things were very ill-conceived. I recommend to hon. Gentlemen who want to find the views of the Kenya settlers to read a document which has been published by the European Elected Members' Organisation. It is a statement of policy by liberal-minded Europeans who realise that the future of Africa is bound up with black and white. One of the statements in this document is:
"To develop opportunities for all loyal subjects, irrespective of race, to advance in accordance with character and ability."
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have often said that the African is not permitted to rise. I want them to remember another declaration in this document, which is:
488
"In the Public Service, technical posts or posts of executive grading of equal responsibility, should carry equal salaries for persons of equal qualifications and ability, irrespective of race."
That is the sort of document that is being circulated at the present time. The liberal-minded people of Kenya know full well that there is no future for them or for the Africans unless they all work together.
Statements are made which may cause trouble between the two races. It is rather extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) should try to visit on my right hon. Friend all the troubles through which Kenya is going at the present time. There is no doubt that Mau Mau has been in existence under the surface for several years, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Colonial Office and those Ministers who have been visiting Kenya previous to the coming into office of the Conservative Party must have known that these disturbances were boiling up, and that was the time when steps should have been taken to prevent the disaster which has overtaken Kenya. I can only wish that my right hon. Friend had been Colonial Secretary some four or five years ago, in which case Kenya would still be the happy country it was before Mau Mau started.
Now a few words about Tanganyika. I suppose that my right hon. Friend will also be blamed for the position in that Territory, but let me remind the House that the future pattern of the Constitution set up by the Colonial Secretary in June, 1952, provided for the expansion of the Legislative Council and for equal representation in it of the three racial groups—Europeans, Africans and Asians. Would the Opposition condemn the action of my right hon. Friend in setting up that Constitution? Tanganyika is progressing under that Constitution.
I now propose to say a word or two about Central African federation, because there has been a great deal of misconception with regard to it. It has been quite rightly stated that federation was started by the Socialists, but they ran away from it. It has also been stated that the party opposite did not agree with the steps which we took when we came to office, because we did not first obtain the approval of the Africans. Would the party opposite have waited until they had received the full approval of people who did not know what was going on? They

489
knew full well that the opposition to Central African federation came from a few vocal extremists who were supplied with literature manufactured, very largely, in this country.
What has happened since federation took place? There has been great industrial expansion. Capital is flowing into these three Territories in order that production can be expanded, for without such expansion the African has no chance of rising from his present low standard of living.
I may be challenged when I say that the relationship between the native and the European populations has improved since federation. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) called attention to the troubles in Nyasaland and said that a tremendous amount of land in that Territory was occupied by Europeans, and that it should not be so occupied.
Mr. S. Silverman: No.
Mr. Baldwin: I am sorry if I misconstrued what the hon. Gentleman said, but he certainly made the point that a lot of land was owned by Europeans. In fact, only about 5 per cent. of the land of Nyasaland is occupied by Europeans.
A few weeks ago, the Governor of Nyasaland made a statement to the Legislative Council in which he said:
"It showed the good sense of the vast bulk of the African population of the Province that, once they realised that they had been misled by false propaganda, and that the Government was not prepared to tolerate the flouting of the laws, the people settled down to their normal lives with a feeling of relief, so that now conditions in the Southern Province are more settled than they had been for some years."
When making statements about what has happened since federation has taken place, hon. Members opposite should realise that they are not being realistic. Federation has been beneficial, and will be even more so as time goes on.
Mr. Follick: What about East Africa?
Mr. Baldwin: I am not talking about East Africa; I am talking about Central Africa. All the Territories were attacked, but no Territory was more violently attacked than Southern Rhodesia. There was more misrepresentation about the position in that Territory than about any other part of Africa.
Let me quote from another speech made by Mr. Jacha, President of the
490
Southern Rhodesian African Farmers' Union. It may be interesting to hon. Members to know that there is such a thing in Southern Rhodesia, because statements have been made that the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia wanted to keep the black man in the ditch but, as one very prominent East African politician has said, a man cannot be kept in the ditch unless you get down beside him. At a meeting of the Southern Rhodesian African Farmers' Union—
Mr. H. Hynd: It that like the National Farmers' Union?
Mr. Baldwin: I do not know whether it is like the National Farmers' Union or why the hon. Member saw fit to interrupt. The President said,
"This year will be remembered by posterity as a year of great events—event's which prove that the country is growing. In it we have celebrated the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, witnessed the opening of the Rhodes Centenary Exhibition by the Queen Mother, and the coming into being of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland."
He further said:
"I urge you farmers to make your full contribution to the three states by becoming active citizens…but we cannot do it unless we follow the white men's footsteps of adopting new and good methods of farming."
That was said by one of the poor, downtrodden farmers about whose conditions we hear such terrible stories; and it should be remembered that there are other unions in Rhodesia.
Federation was brought about during the short period in which the Colonial Secretary has been in office. When this Motion of censure has been defeated, I appeal to the House to return to colonial politics in a non-party atmosphere. During the five or six years when the Conservative Party were in opposition, they supported the colonial policy of the Socialist Party, and the first appeal which the present Colonial Secretary made to the House when he took office was:
"…however much there may from time to time be disagreement between us on details, all parties will be with me in agreeing on those ends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 984.]
He appealed to the House that, in dealing with colonial affairs, it should still keep them free from party politics, and I hope that those reasonable-minded men

491
of the party opposite who have had practical experience will make their voices heard in the party committees in order to see whether we cannot do that, and work for the good of the country as a whole. These debates do a great deal of harm to the whole of Africa.
Mr. H. Hynd Mr. H. Hynd rose—
Mr. Baldwin: If the interruption made previously is typical of what the hon. Member is going to say, I shall not give way.
I would recommend all hon. Members to read an article in this week's "The Economist" entitled "The Colonial Bogeyman." It might open their eyes and give them a little insight into something of which, at the present time, I am sorry to say, so many know so little.
I hope that the Opposition will agree to turn over a new leaf and endeavour to assist the Africans of all races to move forward. This is certainly one of the biggest problems with which this country has ever been faced, and it very largely depends on the attitude of this House towards Colonial affairs as to how Africa develops. There are great possibilities. The African himself realises that he has received great assistance from the white man, and that he must still have a great deal of assistance in the future. I hope that the House will not make it impossible for the white man to continue to assist the black man and to raise him to a higher standard of living.
8.50 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: We have just listened to a very remarkable speech, which I do not think carried the debate much further but, in some ways, re-echoed the speech that we heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon. They contained this common feature, which is difficult for many of us on this side of the House to interpret.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the Secretary of State adopted as one of their main contentions that there was something nefarious and contrary to the public spirit in our discussing this subject at all in this House. Does that really mean that the Opposition are faced with the dilemma that either they agree with the Government, in which
492
case they are acting in the public interest, or they must keep their mouths shut and not discuss the Colonies at all? That seems to fee the logical conclusion of what, so far as I could apprehend, was the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made a reasoned case, putting forward the view which we on this side of the House earnestly hold, that the Colonial Secretary is a disability to the country. Mediocre though the performance of his colleagues is, his is far worse. He asked almost plaintively for credit for the few achievements which he has to his name, which we readily concede, but our case is that if we weigh the advantages and the disadvantages which have accrued from the right hon. Gentleman's administration, he appears as a serious and grievous encumbrance, and the debit balance heavily outweighs the credit.
Therefore, we put down this Motion criticising the right hon. Gentleman's administration because it is our considered view that the sooner he goes from the office which he at present holds the better for the destinies of Africa and for the future relationships of Africans with this country.
Mr. William Keenan: Where is he?
Sir F. Soskice: The first thing that we noticed about the right hon. Gentleman's speech, after the effect of his protest about our discussing the matter at all had evaporated, was that he did not proceed to answer one single point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly had made against him. Therefore, it seems to me that, in the hope that whoever is to reply to the debate, will do better than the Secretary of State, I must recapitulate the arguments and give him a chance to make a defence on behalf of his right hon. Friend, if there is a defence to be made.
The case we make against the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government in relation to their administration of African affairs is this. We think that the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly, throughout the two years that have elapsed, shown that he is completely insensitive to African opinion. He has,

493
by action after action, increased the distrust which Africans now feel for the Government of this country and are beginning to feel for the white races as a whole. No greater catastrophe for the future of mankind can be conceived than that the black races should be aligned against the white races.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman has now entered the Chamber. I think I heard his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government say that I had been rather offensive so far. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I am being wholly just to him. I was saying that he was a very grievous encumbrance.
May I take up my argument from the point that I had reached when the Secretary of State came into the House? I was saying that the case we had against him, which he had made no endeavour whatsoever to answer, was that he had shown by action after action during the two years of his administration that he was utterly unaware of African opinion and incapable of looking at matters from the point of view of the African. We say that the consequences of that disability and inability on the part of the right hon. Gentleman are that there is a growing distrust on the part of the Africans, and that relationships in the future will be grievously prejudiced if the right hon. Gentleman continues in his present office.
If the right hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall develop the case against him. When answering my right hon. Friend he entertained us with a great deal of information which we already knew very well. He said that there were a number of ethnological differences in Africa; that it was a very large continent, and that a number of Africans had not seen an aeroplane until comparatively recently. That really does not answer the main case against him, which is that he has shown himself completely unequal to the task that faces him.
What is that task? He told us, as we know, that Africa is in a state of transition; that the Africans are groping after new concepts of democracy, liberty and self-government, and that it is the aim of Governments of this country to help them towards the gradual attainment of a greater and greater measure of self-government within the Commonwealth. So far, we are agreed, but what we say
494
about the right hon. Gentleman is that the progress towards the attainment of that end, which had marked the years of Labour Administration, was brought to an abrupt halt when the present Conservative Government came into office.
I want to look back and take, point by point, the arguments which my righthon. Friend used against the Secretary of State. He began his administration by what we regarded, and still regard, as a crucial fault, by imposing Central African federation upon an unwilling African population. That is his fundamental fault. He very much objected to our pointing that out. It was unpatriotic on our part, according to him, to argue that point throughout the debates which took place on Central African federation, just as it is unpatriotic today for us to raise the question of his own administration. That is a matter on which, however persuasively he puts his argument forward, we shall never be able to agree.
During the course of the debates on Central African federation we pointed to organisations, spokesmen, every representative of African opinion in the three African territories, trade unions, the African Council and the Council of Nyasaland—Councils which the right hon. Gentleman himself said were representative of African opinion—and we quoted their utterances, saying that they were firmly and irrevocably opposed to the imposition of Central African federation. The right hon. Gentleman, nevertheless, persisted in going forward with his plan.
Mr. Lyttelton: Your plan.
Sir F. Soskice: I am much obliged—our plan, originally elaborated as a result of the initiative of my right hon. Friend, replete with adequate safeguards to protect African interests. When the Colonial Secretary's plan came out, emasculated as the result of the consideration of successive conferences since this Government came into office—at many of which the Africans were not represented—it was to a large extent bereft of those safeguards and, because it was so bereft, the Africans refused to have it imposed upon them.
The Secretary of State should have considered the fact—and we say that this was a serious fault upon his part—that he was imposing this scheme upon

495
Africans in the face of what was going on in South Africa. We have no complaint that he is in any way responsible for Dr. Malan, and I have no doubt that he and his right hon. Friends dislike the poisonous reactionary policy of Dr. Malan as much as we do. [HON MEMBERS: "Do they?"] Some of my hon. hon. Friends ask, "Do they?" That is a matter, perhaps, of opinion. I do not credit them with liking Dr. Malan's policy. What, however, the Secretary of State should have done, in our view at any rate, was as a first consideration to say to himself, "The Malan policy of apartheid is gradually broadening. It is gradually being unfolded in front of African eyes." He should have taken note of the fact that the immigration of white settlers was larger in volume that any other white immigration.
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He says that that, at least, is true. If the right hon. Gentleman did take that into account and if he considered that every organ of African opinion was consistently against the imposition of Central African federation it seems to us on this side of the House difficult to see how he could have brought himself to go on with the emasculated scheme as it was when he imposed it upon the Africans.
We think that that was the root of the evil inherent in the present administration. It was interesting today, if somewhat depressing, to hear the right hon. Gentleman, although he himself had described some of these African organisations as fully representative of African opinion, still saying that the volume of opposition to which we pointed was simply—I think he used this expression—the idleprattling or idle clamour of a few interested parties. That is what he said, entirely in conflict with what he himself said when we were discussing Central African federation at an earlier stage of its history. That is the view he still takes.
I point to it because it seems to us to be significant of the profound shortcomings of the right hon. Gentleman to fit into the office he at present holds, which have caused distrust amongst Africans, and sowed suspicion among the three Territories in Central Africa as to
496
the future intentions of British Governments as a whole and particularly, of course, Conservative Governments. In that way, he did a great deal to exasperate the feeling among Africans as a whole and to do precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly described—create a situation of an inflammatory and dangerous character which could easily have been avoided had it not been for the right hon. Gentleman's persistent obstinacy in going on with this scheme.
It is really no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say, as he does—and it is really the only excuse that he makes for himself in continuing with this scheme—that it was originally our scheme. Certainly, it was originally our scheme, but in an entirely different form, in a form in which it might well have been acceptable to Africans; but it became completely unacceptable to them when it had suffered the various changes that it did suffer when it passed through the various conferences at which it was considered.
What has happened since? We have all noticed in the Press, and we rejoice in the fact, that the Confederate Party has so far gained no seats. Everybody rejoices about that, but will the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends consider how the scene must appear to Africans at this moment? This is the appeal that my right hon. Friend made to the right hon. Gentleman earlier today. We on this side are not altogether completely reassured about many of Sir Godfrey Huggins's and Sir Roy Welensky's utterances particularly that one attributed to Sir Roy Welensky in the extract from "The Times" that my right hon. Friend read out today, but their party has now swept the board.
At present, the Confederate Party has no seats. However, Africans must see, and must have seen, during this election, that of the two parties contesting over their destinies one is the party of Sir Roy Welensky, with the views to which I referred a moment or so ago, and the other is the Confederate Party, with a policy and doctrine of apartheid of which Dr. Malan might well be proud.
At the outset, Hitler had no support; at the end, he carried everything before him. It may well be that the Confederates now have no influence, but who knows what is to happen in the future? At any rate, they are the only other party

497
organisation in the field worth mentioning. The elections take place upon a suffrage against the form of which we repeatedly protested during the course of those debates and which virtually—virtually, not wholly, but because of the various qualifications inherent in it—virtually excludes Africans from participating in the vote. These two parties, therefore, contest over the destinies of Africans and are elected upon a suffrage in which, broadly speaking, Africans do not participate.
When the Measure which introduced federation was being discussed, we begged the right hon. Gentleman to write into the Bill some safeguard at least in the matter of suffrage. He refused, if I remember correctly, on the wholly technical grounds that it was impossible at that stage, the Committee stage, to alter the Bill. Not only did he refuse, but recently, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, he has gone further still and has capitulated to white opinion, in promising that in Northern Rhodesia, for a period of what, in effect, will be at least five years, there should be no electoral change. My right hon. Friend cited the satisfaction with which Sir Roy Welensky, on learning of that, concluded that there would be what he regarded as no reckless experiment in the next five years and then it would be virtually too late.
We on this side of the House regard that as a complete reversal of what had been hoped for at the very outset of the scheme. Here are the Africans under the domination of this Federal Government elected with little chance of there being a change in the electoral structure, or of the suffrage upon which the election is based, and with these two parties being the only two parties in the field. What must Africans think of that? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is a situation which even he contemplates with any degree of equanimity.
I for my part, and I think my right hon. and hon. Friends agree, see in that a situation fraught with great danger for the future, and we regard the Secretary of State as being directly responsible for having disregarded our warnings, repeatedly uttered during the course of the consideration of this scheme. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but he has been responsible for
498
the administration in Africa for the last two years.
So much for the situation in Central Africa. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for some credit for his achievement, such as it is, in Gambia, Sierra Leone, and Tanganyika. I will willingly concede him all the credit to which he can claim to be entitled. But if we look away from Central Africa, where African opinion, not unnaturally, is exasperated with the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Lyttelton: Nonsense.
Sir F. Soskice: —exasperated and rightly suspicious, where can the right hon. Gentleman take comfort in the African scene? We have the Gold Coast and Gambia and Sierra Leone. [HON MEMBERS: "What about Kenya?"] Well, what about Kenya? I left out Nigeria because there was that little indiscretion on the right hon. Gentleman's part which by itself would perhaps not have been significant but which, added to and herded together with a whole lot of others, some of which I shall mention in a moment, leads to the conclusion that he is quite unsuitable for the office which he holds. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear."
May I say a few words about Kenya? The right hon. Gentleman was robust in his defence today, but he did not answer the points made against him and I will repeat them now. I do not say that he can be saddled with the blame of the beginning of the Mau Mau troubles, but what I do say is that his policy has been completely inadequate to deal with that menace which has broken out and which at present threatens the life of Kenya. I will say why. There has been a war on a considerable scale, involving a large number of British troops, for something like 12 months, which shows no signs of ceasing. Certainly, in its origin, its causes are economic, social, racial, and so on, but does the right hon. Gentleman, if he will use his imagination on the matter, really think that the bitterness which quite obviously lies behind the Mau Mau rising and which keeps it in existence is wholly divorced from the suspicion and hatred for which his own policy has been responsible?
It is, I know, difficult to measure the precise causes and strength of feelings among large numbers of persons, but

499
what it is not difficult to do, and what it is obviously and always has been the imperative duty of the right hon. Gentleman to do, is not simply to stand aside and be completely negative and supine in the face of this disastrous menace. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, what he should have done and should be doing now, and throughout the 12 months which have elapsed since the fighting was begun, was to take every possible step to try to mobilise anti-Mau Mau African opinion, to get it on the side of the forces of law and order, to bring into being and help into strength some alternative political organisation which could harness the African people, and guide it so as to stand as the ally of the forces of law and order in trying to bring the Mau Mau terrorist activity to an end.
That was the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly made against the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask him, and ask his right hon. Friend in making the final reply to this debate, to say on his behalf, because he had not said yet in answer to my right hon. Friend, what single step he has taken. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an answer about that.
It was pointed out when the Advisory Committee was formed by the Governor that there was no African representative upon it. It was urged upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should include such representatives. We were met, when we made the suggestion, by the usual categorical refusal without any reason being given at all. He simply said that he proposed not to do it. Therefore, Africans were excluded from that. He has made no endeavour to try to enlist, or if he has perhaps his right hon. Friend will tell us, the services of representative anti-Mau Mau leaders in Kenya to fight against the Mau Mau terror and to try to build up constructively African opinion on the lines which my right hon. Friend has urged upon the Colonial Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman, this afternoon, just dismissed my right hon. Friend's accusations and charges against him as mere trumpery things. Does he really say, and do his hon. Friends say with him, that it is merely trumpery to have done nothing in the direction of trying constructively to build up some-
500
thing like an active organised African opinion among the Africans in Kenya? On our side of the House that certainly seems to us to be a grave shortcoming on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to point to what I regard as a very serious shortcoming in another respect. I think that all hon. and right hon. Members in this House must be agreed upon this. The Secretary of State, I am sure, is himself agreed upon it. There is serious disquiet among public opinion in this country and, no doubt, in other countries about many of the things which, rightly or wrongly, are reported as taking place in Kenya today. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that there were at the outset certain excesses which had been dealt with by disciplinary methods. Can he tells us, because my hon. Friends and I are not aware of it, of any single case in which serious punishment has been visited upon those responsible for the excesses? Jealousy for the honour of British troops in Kenya is certainly no monopoly of the right hon. Gentleman or of Members opposite, and we on this side of the House share that feeling with the right hon. Gentleman as keenly as he himself has it.
It is a shocking indictment of the right hon. Gentleman's administration in Kenya that it should have taken the Griffiths trial and the allegations made in the course of that trial to have prodded the Government into sending out, for the first time, an inquiry into these excesses which are commonly reputed to have taken place. [Interruption.] If it is not the first time, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate will tell us. The Secretary of State for the Colonies was asked whether the inquiry was to be limited only to military episodes and whether he would not also extend a similar inquiry into possible excesses committed either by the police or by civilians.
I lived a year and a half in Kenya and I have a high regard for the settlers, many of whom I know. Nevertheless, it is always the case that the many are from time to time let down by the few; and there are undoubtedly thugs there who are trigger-happy and who are capable of excesses which are wrongly imputed to other people. It was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman, at an early

501
stage, to foresee that that kind of thing might be possible, and not to wait until the revelations in the Griffiths case were known.
Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong about that.
Sir F. Soskice: All I can say is that I am not aware of it. If I prove to be wrong, I shall be grateful to be corrected.
I hope that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has carefully studied the facts and will be able to correct me upon them if I have gone wrong, but so far as I and, I believe, my hon. Friends are concerned, the first real attempt to inquire into these excesses has sprung out of the revelations in the Griffiths case. I should have thought that if he had closed his eyes and ears and had not even looked at the Press, the right hon. Gentleman must have realised that there might be dangers of that sort of excess as the result of the bitterness and anger and fighting arising out of the Mau Mau outrages.
And yet the right hon. Gentleman, in those two vital respects to which we have pointed—building up some alternative African leadership to supply the vacuum left by the African Congress, and so on, and also in taking early steps to nail down the rumours if they are untrue and to present all these things in their true light before a troubled English and European opinion—has been completely deficient. He has done neither the one nor the other. The gravamen of our charge is not so much what he has done—perhaps his administration has a cold mechanical efficiency—but what he has left undone in those two crucial spheres of activity. He said that it was his duty to preserve law and order, and so it is. So is it the duty of every policeman, but from the Secretary of State for the Colonies we are entitled to expect more, and the right hon. Gentleman has been failing in these two very important respects to which we have pointed.
I turn now from Kenya to Uganda. The right hon. Gentleman, I feel sure, will know what is coming now. It is only because he is so completely insensitive to African opinion and so completely remote from it with not the faintest imagination to help him to enter into the African mind, that it was possible for him to make the disastrously infelicitous speech which
502
he made on 30th June at the East Africa Club. [An Hon. Member: "Was it a happy speech?"]One of my hon. Friends asks whether it was a happy speech. It was certainly a happy speech.
We can forgive a Minister who, in the course of a public utterance, uses incautious language, such as the Prime Minister's famous Gestapo speech, but for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the knowledge of what happened in Central Africa, to have made this grossly incautious speech in the circumstances in which he made it, is, in our thinking at any rate, completely unforgiveable and indicative of a complete lack of that sensitiveness of imagination which must go with anybody who holds his office with any success.
The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that the speech on Federation had nothing to do with the crisis. When I first read that he had said that in a speech he made on 2nd December I thought that was perhaps another occasion on which he used incautious language, but since I have heard him repeat it today I think one has to put a more sinister interpretation upon it. Will his right hon. Friend tell the House if he thinks that that speech was not the direct cause of the crisis which led to the summary deposition of the Kabaka of Buganda, the 37th ruler in his hereditary line, why it was that, on his own showing, immediately after he had made this speech and after it had been blazoned in the Press of East Africa, to use his own language in the House of Commons on 2nd December, he realised
"in the middle of August…that a crisis might develop in Uganda"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1249.]
If he thought that his speech had nothing to do with the bringing about of that crisis, why was one of his very first actions to send to the Kabaka of Buganda an intended reassurance in terms denying that Her Majesty's Government had any intention of imposing federation on an unwilling opinion in Buganda?
I should like to trespass for a few moments on the time of the House to refer to some of the words which were contained in the reassurance, because they are enlightening as showing the state of mind of the right hon. Gentleman. Having made this disastrous speech and

503
the crisis having arisen, this is what he said in his assurance:
"Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatsoever of raising the issue of East African Federation either at the present time or while local public opinion on this issue remains as it is at the present time. Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that public opinion in the Protectorate generally and in Buganda in particular, including the opinion of the Great Lukiko, would be opposed to the inclusion of the Uganda Protectorate in any such federation; Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatsoever of disregarding this opinion either now or at any time, and recognises accordingly that the inclusion of the Uganda Protectorate in any such federation is outside the realm of practical politics at the present time or while local government opinion remains as it is at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1251.]
Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman. If he really thinks that it was not his speech which brought about the crisis, why was it necessary to give that assurance? Does he still persist in that assertion? If he does, he is flying right in the face of his own language.
Mr. C. J. M. Alport Mr. C. J. M. Alport (Colchester) rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry, but I want to give the right hon. Gentleman plenty of opportunity for answering various questions that I have put to him.
I would also point out to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that although he asserts here that he would not impose federation on an unwilling Uganda opinion, he stands convicted before African opinion at large of having done precisely the same thing in Central Africa, and if it was wrong to do it in Uganda, why was it right to do it in Central Africa? Can he or his right hon. Friend answer that question?
We are pleased to see from an announcement by the deputation of the great Lukiko which called upon the right hon. Gentleman that apparently a settlement either has been arrived at or is about to be arrived at. Whether it will be possible in view of the language, which also seemed rather incautious to us, used by the Minister of State, apparently under the tutelage of the Secretary of State, when he said that the question of the Kabaka returning to Buganda could now
504
be discounted—he was so eager to say it that he even talked the debate out; but whether it is still possible for him to withdraw the language and for the Kabaka to go back and the entire issue to be settled, I do not know; we can only hope that it will be.
I would also point out, as a symptom of the right hon. Gentleman's handling of these matters, that the one thing which seems to have satisfied the delegation is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he regards Uganda primarily in the future as an African State, but he did not give that reason in the course of the debate until it was dragged out of him by pure accident in the course of an intervention he made when my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) was speaking. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have made that one of the main arguments of the answer he gave to the House of Commons.
What he did say in the course of that debate, and which was self-revelationary, was that he had apparently offended the Kabaka and the great Lukiko by the language he had used, which he still thought very vague. As Secretary of State, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that his language, vague though it may have appeared to him, was not fully pregnant of meaning in the ears and before the eyes of all Africans who either heard it or read it? If he did not realise that, and if he were guilty of such grave indiscretion as to use that kind of language, we feel doubly convinced that we have taken the right, indeed, the necessary course in putting down this Motion in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman may in due course be removed from his present office.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will realise that this Motion is not put down from any sense of hostility towards him personally. [An Hon. Member: "Deep affection."] On the contrary, my hon. and right hon. Friends view with the greatest sympathy and good will the struggles of a man with a task which is hopelessly beyond his powers. Indeed, we feel pity for the right hon. Gentleman when he tries desperately to draw upon an understanding which he does not possess. In some areas of governmental

505
activity his undoubtedly great talents, which we all recognise, and his undoubted courage, which we equally recognise, may be useful. There are in this country Departments in which, for a time, we can afford to see Ministers of second-class. But the right hon. Gentleman's Department is not one of those Departments.
I conclude by saying that unless the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is to reply on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, gives an answer which the Secretary of State did not give in his speech, it is apparent that the public interest demands—as it has long demanded—that the Secretary of State should speedily depart from his present appointment.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) began his speech with a form of argument which is very common and which, I am afraid, has brought his great profession under some suspicion among laymen. He used the old trick of putting up an argument which had not been used and then knocking it down.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this side of the House objected to a discussion on colonial affairs and that our view was that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must either agree or remain silent. That is a pettifogging argument. We said nothing of the kind. There are many occasions for discussion of colonial affairs. There have been a good many lately. There are Supply Days and Adjournment debates. What we said was that we regretted that a Motion of censure had been put down on these matters. That is not the argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said we had used, and he knows it. He used a thoroughly dishonest argument, and he knows that, too.
In the course of some 30 years I have heard a good many Motions of censure debated in this House, ranging over a great many subjects, but I do not recall one which was so feebly launched or so decisively repulsed. It was only after long hesitation and, I suppose, a great number of internal conflicts—I thought there was rather a cri de coeur when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said
506
that there were always some bad elements in every party—that the final decision was taken to place the Motion on the Order Paper, and that concluded—I must ask hon. Members to take their minds back to it—one of the must curious, not to say droll, episodes in our Parliamentary history.
Hon. Members will recall the series of decisions. First, the Motion was on, and, by the normal courtesies, the Government Whips were informed that a Motion of censure was down. At the same time—[Interruption.]—hon. Gentlemen opposite may well listen to this—the challenge was proclaimed to the Press and the news agencies, and the readers of the tape machines and the listeners to the broadcasts were told that the Opposition had decided, after full deliberation, to move a Motion of censure on my right hon. Friend which would be pressed with vigour and determination.
To our amazement, a little later on that same evening we were told that the Motion was off, and that it was not to be put down after all. The Motion was not actually withdrawn. That is true. Taking advantage of the technicality that the actual text, though it had been given to the Press, had not been put in at the Table, hon. Gentlemen opposite were able to argue that the Motion had never really existed. But this was only for a few hours. The next official intimation from the party opposite was that the Motion was on again. Three hours later it was off again.
The Opposition leaders seem to treat Motions of censure rather like those items on the bill of fare of various clubs and restaurants, including, I am sorry to say, sometimes, our own Dining Room in the House of Commons. The best dishes are on and they are off; they are on again, and then they are off again. What may be excusable in these spheres is really quite unworthy of the tradition of the House of Commons.
From one point of view, of course, we on this side of the House, and especially the intimate colleagues of my right hon. Friend, welcome this debate. We feel that it is due to him and to the great services he has given and is giving to the Colonial Empire that he should receive a vote of confidence from the House of Commons. Indeed, at one point in these

507
extraordinary vacillations, we did consider ourselves placing a Motion of confidence upon the Order Paper. [HON MEMBERS: "Why did you not do it?"] Because it changed every three hours, and we did not know whether it was on or off. We were only restrained from doing so by one consideration. We did not wish by any act of ours to make manifest to the Colonial Empire itself and to the world in general the breakdown—we hoped only a temporary one—in what hitherto had been by long tradition a generally bipartisan colonial policy.
We now have the opportunity of giving a decisive vote tonight, and everybody, including the right hon. Gentleman opposite—for all his extraordinary technique and versatility—knows that, in his own party, there are many people who wish this Motion had not been put down. There are some who are not going to vote for it, and I make him that bet. There are some who are not entirely happy about the handling of these matters by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
There would be a great sense of relief if, even now, after the most, I will not say violent, because he is incapable of violence, but waspish speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend, who can sting a little, but it does not mean much, because he smiles while he stings, and he is not capable of serious damage to my right hon. Friend—there would still be a sense of relief if, at this late hour, we decided to agree upon words—[HON MEMBERS: "Talk it out."] No, we shall make hon. and right hon. Gentlemen vote; they will not get out of it that way. I still say that I believe there would be relief if, in conformity with the underlying view of the House, we could agree upon a form of words expressing our concern, our sympathy and our desire to achieve progress for the African peoples, which is really our common purpose.
I shall not go over the whole field, although I noticed that, in the tremendous case built up with such sentiment—such anodyne sentiment—which was produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, he said as little as possible about the places that are going on well. He did not say anything about the Gold
508
Coast, Gambia and all those places where progress goes on, such as Tanganyika and Sierra Leone, where all these changes are going forward.
But, with regard to Nigeria, it is common knowledge that my right hon. Friend, far from deserving the attack of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, at the conference won the support, the praise and the confidence of the participants beyond almost any statesman who has had to deal with colonial affairs. The highest tributes were paid to him, and are still being paid, by the leaders of all Nigerian political parties, to my right hon. Friend's impartiality, tact and skill. The fact that they had invited him, as has never been done with any hon. Gentleman opposite, to undertake the task of acting as umpire showed how much they trusted him, and we earnestly hope that in his visit to Nigeria in January he will be able to bring his great work to its final conclusion. It would have been a graceful act if the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion had thought fit to say a word of congratulation. He had a little weak, watery kind of praise, but he mixed it with his usual drops of gall.
My right hon. Friend has explained in detail the story of the Central African federation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has not been quite fair to himself when he said he repeated the speech that he made in connection with the federation Measure. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend said quite a lot of other things too. I will take all the points and try to answer them. My right hon. Friend having explained this matter in detail, his record is absolutely above reproach. I do not think that the same could be said for the Leader of the Opposition, or at any rate for the Members who are now running the colonial policy of the Opposition.
After all, they were the founders of this policy. It was they who started it, and it is a strange paradox that they are now trying to murder their own infant. It is from their efforts that this whole conception began. It is common knowledge that they would have carried it forward to the best of their ability had they remained in office. But—and this is what we accuse them of—although the Leader of the Opposition said that

509
although he disagreed with its timing, once the thing was through he would do all he could as a patriotic man to see that it was made a success, that is not what many hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing. They had poured out a stream of propaganda, trying to poison every chance.
I do not know that there are agreed views. Some hon. Members opposite hold fanatical and quite unrealistic views on this matter, but we always recognise their sincerity. Others seem to like to make trouble just for the sake of making trouble. Anyway, what has happened is that this federation scheme is now launched, and it is going to be a success.
I want to reply in some detail to one or two points that were mentioned about the scheme itself. The right hon. Member for Llanelly referred to and made much play with a statement made by Sir Roy Welensky, and some alleged equivocations in it. What Sir Roy said seemed to me in no way inconsistent, and cannot in any way affect the position of Her Majesty's Government, either this Government or their successors. It is perfectly clear, and both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman know it—the right hon. and learned Gentleman can read documents even if he misrepresents them—that it is part of the Constitution and that the responsibility for constitutional changes in the Northern Territories rests with Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Government alone.
Of course, if the Federal Government comes into being it is hardly to be supposed that Her Majesty's Government will not consult them and ask their advice. Is that wrong? Do we expect to make these changes without consulting the Ministers who are operating the federal Government and without knowing what they think? Surely that is not our method. I emphasise that responsibility will lie upon Her Majesty's Government in this country, and upon nobody else. The question was raised about what changes are about to be made in Northern Rhodesia and how soon they were to be made. Is it conceivable that changes could be made within a period much smaller than five years, after the next election?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did at least pay this tribute, that something at least had happened and that Sir Godfrey Huggins had swept the board in
510
the federal elections. It must have been a little bit of a regret to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I thought he was going to make great play with it. Unfortunately for him he must have read on the tape that the Confederate Party did not so far get any seats. What did he do? He said, "The way to have political success in the future is not to win now," like Hitler. That just shows how hon. Members opposite will twist and torture any fact and any argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the safeguards in the new Constitution are not emasculated but are stronger on behalf of the Africans than they were under the plan of himself and his friends.
Then the right hon. Gentleman made great play with the word "suspicion." That was the great word. He is one of those who go about saying, "Do not cause distrust; do not cause suspicion." We all know those people who, in bad and difficult times, go about saying, "Do not cause distrust and suspicion," but who create them all the time. It is the right hon. Gentleman's stock in trade. He made great play with the fact that at the meeting in February, 1952, there were no Africans present. He said that this fact caused deep suspicion. Had he forgotten the meeting which he called in March, 1951, at which, again, and in spite of pressure from some hon. Members behind him, no Africans were present?
Mr. J. Griffiths: It was a meeting of officials, a consultation with members of the Colonial Service. The first conference which I attended on this matter was at Victoria Falls, at which Africans were acting as representatives.
Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman says that the conference called by my right hon. Friend in London caused suspicion. But what was that but a conference of officials? There were two Governors, but no representatives of the elected members of the Northern Territories for whom the Governors spoke, as they spoke for Africans. I really do not see, if a Secretary of State for the Colonies cannot call two Governors and a Prime Minister to see him, how he is to conduct his affairs.
Mr. Griffiths: The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia is not an official, and he was present.
Mr. Macmillan: The point is that there were no elected members of the Northern Territories, and that they were represented by the Governors.
Now we come to Kenya. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made great play with the lack of organisation—that was his phrase—of an opposition movement among the loyal anti-Mau Mau in order to clothe it with some political scheme. I wish first to say—and I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree—how much we welcomed what he said about the European population in Kenya. I am glad that he associated himself with the general tribute to their good spirit and good sense. It is indeed encouraging that a man such as Mr. Blundell acts as their leader.
Throughout this terrible time the European population have shown great courage and great good feeling. Of course, we know, in spite of our sympathy for them, that the monstrous attacks of Mau Mau and its fanatical savagery have fallen with far greater rigour upon the Africans themselves. They have been the main sufferers, and the casualties caused among them and the horrible things done to them are on a far greater scale.
Therefore, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is to ask what is the way to organise the support. The first thing is to get people to rally round and help. What has happened is that the loyal African people have given magnificent support to and rallied round in great numbers organisations such as the police, the Home Guard, and all the rest. They would not have done that unless in their hearts they were prepared to work with those who are prepared to work with them. That is the real answer, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that is the answer which the Africans have given.
With regard to the incidents which we all deplore, all I would say is that the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the hon. and learned Member both referred to the "Griffiths case." I am bound to point out that what arose out of that was a high-powered inquiry—and had I been a former Secretary of State for War I would rather have waited until the
512
inquiry had reported, but that is a matter of taste.
It should be remembered that sometimes we English people do behave quite well. There is something to be said for our country. It has been mentioned very many times by refugees to this country, and by other people, "The remarkable thing is that your country has a public court martial like this. There is nothing hushed up. When something is done it is brought out into the open. If you had been in the countries we have come from and struggled against, there would have been no inquiry, no court martial, no high-powered judges going out to get to the root of the thing." I think that is something to be proud of.
Even in this disastrous incident—[Hon. Member: "Eight minutes."] Oh yes, I noticed that—there are some redeeming features. The personality of General Erskine, like the personality of General Templer, has imposed itself upon the whole country, it commands the admiration of all his fellow countrymen, and it is good to feel that there are men such as this ready to lead us still.
On every occasion upon which the administration of my right hon. Friend has been attacked it has been triumphantly defended by him. But before I leave Kenya I should like to make just one reference to a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) because I think it is of some importance. I understood him to accuse the Government, or to put forward the view, that the doctrine which was introduced by the Duke of Devonshire in 1923, that African interests were paramount, had now been abandoned.
I take a certain interest in this because I remember very well the circumstances when that doctrine was laid down, but it was declared by the Joint Select Committee of Parliament in 1931 as meaning no more than that the interests of one section of the community were not to be sacrificed to those of another, however important in itself. That doctrine has been reaffirmed by Mr. Creech Jones, and has been reaffirmed by the former Secretary of State, and it surely is now accepted that the true doctrine today is the doctrine of partnership and equal regard for all the interests concerned.
Mr. Dugdale: May I ask whether it was the doctrine of partnership which induced the Government to refuse any consultations with the Africans before introducing Central African federation?
Mr. Macmillan: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman is riding off on a point that he did not make. I am only stating that it is an historical fact—and I have here the formal words in which this doctrine was asserted—so to bring up the view that we have somehow abandoned paramountcy when it was abandoned by the Secretary of State before us is a little unfair, even in an argument in debate. What has done so much harm in all this has been lack of, I would say generosity, but I do not think my right hon. Friend would expect that, but I do think a certain lack of responsibility, in this continued attack upon him.
Let me take the last example of all to which the right hon. Gentleman made reference—the case of Buganda. I was rather interested that he should raise that. There is something rather comic in the oppressors of Tshekedi posing as the champions of the Kabaka. Everyone can remember what happened on that occasion.
I do not think that in the whole history of the House of Commons can an attack have so completely misfired and, when the Colonial Secretary had finished his statement, clear, manly and sincere, it was common knowledge that as hon. Members walked out they said, "This is the end of that." I think that was one of the times—I get them so confused—when the Motion of censure was hurriedly withdrawn, and, of course, it should never have been revived. It was withdrawn in one of those moods which come some-
times to the House of Commons, a certain generous emotion in which we all feel that something bigger than our disputes binds us together. It was put back again in a pure piece of party politics at its worst. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether it is not a contradiction that a principle which should apply in Uganda should not automatically apply in Central Africa. There are all kinds of differences between some of these territories. One of the important differences is that there are 4,000 Europeans in Uganda and something like 200,000 Europeans in Central Africa. All these points have been over-stressed and over-stated in order to make a case, but one good thing, at any rate, is that an opportunity has been given to my right hon. Friend, who comes of a great cricketing family, to perform a hat-trick.
I still think that it would have been better if a debate had been raised not in terms of censure, not promoted by this long, steady propaganda against the Government and my right hon. Friend, but in an attempt to get that very real basis of unity and agreement which still does exist in these affairs between many of us. I believe there are many in the party opposite who will regret this vote. I hope some of them will have the courage to abstain from it. But at any rate, if it is not possible to have this demonstration of unity, then we are glad to have an opportunity to say to a colleague who has been so traduced and so villified that he has our confidence and our affection, and we believe that to be the view of the colonial peoples and of the whole British nation.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 301.

Division No. 17.]

AYES

[9.57 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Blenkinsop, A.

Coldrick, W

Adams, Richard

Blyton, W. R.

Collick, P. H.

Albu, A. H.

Boardman, H.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Cove, W. G.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Bowles, F. G.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Crosland, C. A. R.

Awbery, S. S.

Brockway, A. F.

Grossman, R. H. S

Bacon, Miss Alice

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Baird, J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Daines, P.

Balfour, A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Bartley, P.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Bence, C. R.

Callaghan, L. J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Carmichael, J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Benson, G.

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Deer, G.

Beswick, F.

Champion, A. J

Delargy, H. J.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Chapman, W. D.

Dodds, N. N.

Blackburn, F.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Donnelly, D. L.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Ross, William

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Royle, C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Edelman, M.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Lindgren, G. S.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Short, E. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Logan, D. G.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

MacColl, J. E.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

McGhee, H. G.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

McInnes, J.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Fernyhough, E.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Skeffington, A. M.

Fienburgh, W.

McLeavy, F.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Finch, H. J.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Follick, M.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Foot, M. M.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Snow. J. W.

Forman, J. C.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Freeman, John (Watford)

Manuel, A. C.

Sparks, J. A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Steele, T.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Mason, Roy

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Gibson, C. W.

Mayhew, C. P.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Glanville, James

Mellish, R. J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Gooch, E. G.

Messer, Sir F.

Strauss Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mikardo, Ian

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Mitchison, G. R.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

Monslow, W.

Swingler, S. T.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Moody, A. S.

Sylvester, G. O.

Grey, C. F.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Morley, R.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hale, Leslie

Mort, D. L.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Moyle, A.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Mulley, F. W.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Murray, J. D.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Hannan, W.

Nally, W.

Thornton, E.

Hardy, E. A.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Timmons, J.

Hargreaves, A.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Tomney, F.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

O'Brien, T.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Hastings, S.

Oldfield, W. H.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Hayman, F. H.

Oliver, G. H.

Wallace, H. W.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Orbach, M.

Warbey, W. N.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Oswald, T.

Watkins, T. E.

Herbison, Miss M.

Padley, W. E.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Hobson, C. R.

Page, R. G.

Weitzman, D.

Holman, P.

Paget, R. T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wells, William (Walsall)

Houghton, Douglas

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

West, D. G.

Hoy, J. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Pannell, Charles

Wheeldon, W. E.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pargiter, G. A.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Parker, J.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Parkin, B. T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Paton, J.

Wigg, George

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Peart, T. F.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wilkins, W. A.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Popplewell, E.

Willey, F. T.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Porter, G.

Williams, David (Neath)

Janner, B.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Proctor, W. T.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Pryde, D. J.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Rankin, John

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Reeves, J.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Rhodes, H.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Keenan, W.

Richards, R.

Wyatt, W. L.

Kenyon, C.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Yates, V. F.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

King, Dr. H. M.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Baker, P. A. D.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Alport, C. J. M.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Banks, Col. C.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Barber, Anthony

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Arbuthnot, John

Barlow, Sir John

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Baxter, A. B.

Birch, Nigel

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Bishop, F. P.

516

517

Black, C. W.

Hay, John

Moore, Sir Thomas

Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Heald, Sir Lionel

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Heath, Edward

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Neave, Airey

Braine, B. R.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Nicholls, Harmar

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr, G. (Bristol, N.W.)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Bromley-Davenport Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Hollis, M. C.

Nutting, Anthony

Billiard, D. G.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Oakshott, H. D.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hope, Lord John

Odey, G. W.

Burden, F. F. A.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Horobin, I. M.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Carr, Robert

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

Channon, H.

Howard, Hon. Greville (SI. Ives)

Osborne, C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Page, R. G.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Cole, Norman

Hurd, A. R.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Colegate, W. A.

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hyde, Lt.-Col, H. M.

Pitman, I. J.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Powell, J. Enoch

Crouch, R. F.

Jennings, R.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip℄Northwood)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Cuthbert, W. N.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Redmayne, M.

Davidson, Viscountess

Kaberry, D.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Deedes, W. F.

Kerr, H. W.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Lambert, Hon. G.

Renton, D. L. M.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lambton, Viscount

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Robertson, Sir David

Donner, Sir P. W.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Robson-Brown, W.

Drayson, G. B.

Leather, E. H. C.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Roper, Sir Harold

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Duthie, W. S.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Russell, R. S.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Lindsay, Martin

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Erroll, F. J.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G (King's Norton)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Fell, A.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Finlay, Graeme

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Shepherd, William

Fisher, Nigel

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Longden, Gilbert

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

Low, A. R. W.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Snadden, W. McN.

Fort, R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Soames, Capt. C.

Foster, John

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

McKibbin, A. J.

Stevens, G. P.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Gammans, L. D.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Storey, S.

Glover, D.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Godber, J. B.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Studholme, H. G.

Gough, C. F. H.

Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Summers, G. S.

Gower, H. R.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Teeling, W.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Marples, A. E.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Harden, J. R. E.

Maude, Angus

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Maudling, R.

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Tilney, John

Harvey, Air Cdrs. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Mellor, Sir John

Touche, Sir Gordon

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Turner, H. F. L.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Turton, R. H.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

518

519

Vane, W. M. F.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Watkinson, H. A.

Wills, G.

Vosper, D. F.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Wellwood, W.

Wood, Hon. R.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

York, C.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Sir Cedric Drewe and Major Conant.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TELEVISION DEVELOPMENT (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [14th December]:
  "That this House approves the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on Television Development (Command Paper No. 9005)."—[Mr. Gammans.]
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "whilst recognising the desirability of an alternative television programme, regards the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on commercial television, set out in Command Paper No. 9005, as being contrary to the public interest."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. Herbert Morrison Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South) rose—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put. "That the Question be now put."
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Morrison(seated and covered): On a point of order. I was on my feet at least simultaneously with and not after the Government Chief Whip. I only wanted permission to ask the Home Secretary whether he would be willing to conclude his observations on the proposed
  conference which he had started yesterday, but not concluded. I thought that in the public interest it ought to be done very shortly and that I might make a short rejoinder. I submit.Sir, that it is a little unjust that I should not be able to raise that point.
  Mr. Speaker: When the Closure is moved I am bound to put the Question forthwith. I cannot listen to a point of order between the Motion being moved and my putting it. It is in my discretion to reject the Motion if I think the rights of the minority have been infringed, but after two days' debate I can hardly hold that.
  Mr. Morrison Mr. Morrison (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. I agree that you are not bound to take notice of it. Sir, but I informed you earlier that I wanted to say a few words in the hope that the Home Secretary would conclude his observations, otherwise the House is voting without knowing quite what the issue is. It is entirely in your discretion, as youhave said, but I submit that it would not have been wrong if I had been able to do that and if the Home Secretary had been able to speak very shortly.
  Mr. Speaker: Icould not allow any debate. I am forbidden by the Standing Order to allow any debate when the Closure is moved. In this case, I could not reject the Motion. Apart from that, I had to put the Question at once.
  The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes. 278.

  Division No 18.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Barber, Anthony

  Black, C. W.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Braine, B. R.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Braithwaite, Lt-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Bromley-Davenport Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Birch, Nigel

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Hope, Lord John

  Odey, G. W.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim. N.)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Horobin, I. M.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Carr, Robert

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Osborne, C.

  Channon, H.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Page, R. G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Clark, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Cole, Norman

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Jennings, R.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Redmayne, M.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kaberry, D.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Kerr, H.W.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lambton, Viscount

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Donner, Sir P. W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Drayson, G. B.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Russell, R. S.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. O.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Shepherd, William

  Fell, A.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Low, A. R. W.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Fort, R.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Foster, John

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Storey, S.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Glover, D.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Godber, J. B.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Summers, G. S.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Gower, H. R.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Teeling, W.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Marples, A. E.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Maude, Angus

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maudling, R.

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Tilney, John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Turton, R. H.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hay, John

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Neave, Airey

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Heath, Edward

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nutting, Anthony

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Wellwood, W.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  522

  523

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Wills, G.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Sir Cedric Drewe and Major Conant.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  York, C.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Adams, Richard

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Monslow, W.

  Albu, A. H.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Moody, A. S.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Glanville, James

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Morley, R.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Mort, D. L.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Moyle, A.

  Baird, J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Balfour, A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Murray, J. D.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Nally, W.

  Bartley, P.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Bence, C. R.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  O'Brien, T.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Benson, G.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Beswick, F.

  Hannan, W.

  Orbach, M.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Oswald, T.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Padley, W. E.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hastings, S.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Boardman, H.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E).

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Pannell, Charles

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Parker, J.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Holman, P.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Paton, J.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Houghton Douglas

  Peart, T. F.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Porter, G.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Carmichael, J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W )

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Rankin, John

  Coldrick, W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Reeves, J.

  Collick, P. H.

  Janner, B.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Cove, W. G.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Rhodes, H.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Richards, R.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Daines, P.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Ross, William

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Keenan, W.

  Royle, C.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Kenyon, C.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Short, E. W.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Deer, G.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Lipton, Lt-Col. M.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Logan, D. G.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Edelman, M.

  McGovern, J.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  McInnes, J.

  Snow, J. W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  McLeavy, F.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Steele, T.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Finch, H. J.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Stross, Dr Barnett

  Follick, M.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mason, Roy

  Swingler, S. T.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  524

  525

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

  Weitzman, D.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  West, D. G.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Thornton, E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Timmons, J.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Tomney, F.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Wigg, George

  Yates, V. F.

  Wade, D. W.

  Wilcock, Group Capt, C. A. B.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Willey, F. T

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 280.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES

  [10.24 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Hollis, M. C.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Hope, Lord John

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Donner, Sir P. W.

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Horobin, I. M.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Drayson G. B.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Drewe, Sir C.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Barber, Anthony

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hudson, W. R. A (Hull, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Fell, A.

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

  Jennings, R.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Birch, Nigel

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Fort, R.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Black, C. W.

  Foster, John

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Kaberry, D.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Braine, B. R.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Glover, D.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Godber, J. B.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Gower, H. R.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Carr, Robert

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Channon, H.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Cole, Norman

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Colegate, W. A.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hay, John

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Heath, Edward

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Summers, G. S.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Teeling, W.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Marples, A. E.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bedmin)

  Redmayne, M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Maude, Angus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Maudling, R.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Tilney, John

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Mellor, Sir John

  Robertson, Sir David

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Turton, R. H.

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vosper, D. F.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Russell, R. S.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Neave, Airey

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Shepherd, William

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Wellwood, W.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Odey, G. W.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Wills, G.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Osborne, C.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Page, R. G.

  Stevens, G. P.

  York, C.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Mr. Studholme and Major Conant

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Storey, S.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Adams, Richard

  Coldrick, W.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Albu, A. H.

  Collick, P. H.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Gibson, C. W.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Cove, W. G.

  Glanville, James

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Baird, J.

  Daines, P.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Balfour, A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Grey, C. F.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Bartley, P.

  Davits, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Bence, C. R.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hale, Leslie

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Benson, G.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Beswick, F.

  Deer, G.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hannan, W.

  Blackburn, F.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Boardman, H.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Hastings, S.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Bowen, E. R.

  Edelman, M.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Holman, P.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Finch, H. J.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Carmichael, J.

  Follick, M.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Foot, M. M.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Champion, A. J.

  Forman, J. C.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  528

  529

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  O'Brien, T.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Janner, B.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stress, Dr. Barnett

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Orbach, M.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Oswald, T.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Padley, W. E.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Paget, R. T.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Pannell, Charles

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Keenan, W.

  Parker, J.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Paton, J.

  Thornton, E.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Peart, T. F.

  Timmons, J.

  Leo, Frederick (Newton)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Tomney, F.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Popplewell, E.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Porter, G.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Usborne, H. C.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Wade, D. W.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  MacColl, J.E.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Walkins, T. E.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Rankin, John

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  McGovern, J.

  Reeves, J.

  Weitzman, D.

  McInnes, J.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  McLeavy, F.

  Rhodes, H.

  West, D. G.

  MacNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Richards, R.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Ross, William

  Wigg, George

  Manuel, A. C.

  Royle, C.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mason, Roy

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Willey, F. T.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Short, E. W.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Monslow, W.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Morley, R.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Mort, D. L.

  Snow, J. W.

  Yates, V. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Murray, J. D.

  Sparks, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Nally, W.

  Steele, T.

  Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved:
  That this House approves the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on Television Development (Command Paper No. 9005).

  BRITISH RAILWAYS DISPUTE (AGREEMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  10.35 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform the House that, as a result of discussions which have taken place between the British Transport Commission and the three trade unions concerned, agreement has been reached on the following terms:

  1. The British Transport Commission have confirmed their acceptance of the award of the Railway Staff National Tribunal for an increase in rates of pay of salaried and conciliation staff. They are ready to implement it. In the light of the following, this position is accepted by the trade unions.

  2. The British Transport Commission are prepared to examine with the trade unions their whole wage and salary structure. The British Transport Commission contemplate that this examination would be completely exhaustive, without conditions of any kind. Its purposes would be to correct anomalies and give added incentives (including differentials) in desirable cases; and to investigate all standard rates of pay.

  3. At the same time the British Transport Commission and the unions agree to confer in order to evolve ways of in creasing the efficiency of the railway organisation, not only by such adjustment of wages and salaries as may result from the above examination, but by all other appropriate means.

  4. Recognising that the comprehensive review of the whole wage and salary structure will necessarily take some consider able time and that the nature of the claim made by the unions before the Railway Staff National Tribunal precluded the Tribunal from addressing itself to the question of the levels of the standard rates of pay, and after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, the British Trans port Commission have given an assurance that, irrespective of other results emerging from the examination, within two months from the operative date of
  532
  the award there will be a further improvement on a percentage basis of the standard rates in operation prior to the operation of the Railway Staff National Tribunal award No. 15.

  The National Union of Railway men are immediately withdrawing the instructions to their members to cease work on Saturday next at midnight. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government at the patience shown by the various parties which has resulted in this agreement, and to wish them success in their future negotiations.
  Mr. George Isaacs: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman—since I must put it in interrogatory form—whether he is aware that the community generally will be happy at the knowledge of this settlement, that his expression of appreciation of the patience of the parties concerned is well justified, and that his own patience has been justified?
  It is important to notice that this assurance has been given after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, so that we may expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now armed with more powers than any Minister has ever been armed with before. A Minister of Labour has no power of enforcement; he has only the power of his own personality and patience to get any parties to come to an understanding after everybody else has messed it up, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown to a great extent.
  Finally, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept what I thought I was often entitled to, that is, the warm thanks of the House for the work he has done in this matter?
  Sir W. Monckton: I should like to say that if this result leads to a happy Christmas for many people, it is due largely to the way in which the parties to this dispute have met one another. I ought to mention—and I know that the trade unions will agree with me when I do—the patience and skill and statesmanship of Sir Brian Robertson. I am not selecting him alone. All have done that. If I had not had, as I have had in full measure, the support of a very patient House of Commons I could not have made my small contribution.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: I welcome the credit that has been given by the Opposition Front Bench to the Government for the very satisfactory issue that has been reached. The whole country will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, and, in particular, the railwaymen, who were very loth to put the country to the tremendous inconvenience of a strike just now. They will particularly welcome the clause, which the Minister read out, for the immediate improvement of the position.
  Mr. David Jones: May I be allowed to associate all of us who were employed on the railways with the remarks of my right hon. Friend in thanking the Minister of Labour for the perseverance that he has shown? This is not the time in which to suggest to Her Majesty's Government one of the methods in which they can implement the undertaking now given. I want to pay tribute to the statesmanship shown in very difficult circumstances by the leaders of the trade unions, and it would not be unfair to mention the General Secretary of the National Union of Railway men who, during the last few days, has suffered under severe strain and has shown considerable restraint in difficult circumstances. I want to express on behalf of my hon. Friends our appreciation that it has not been necessary to dislocate the business of the country.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I wish to remind the House of the interests of the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) who has the Adjournment debate, out of which all this is coming. Though it is obvious that the news which has been given is pleasing to both sides of the House I hope that hon. Members will remember the interests of the hon. Member.

  RENT TRIBUNALS, LONDON (CHAIRMEN)
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: I am raising the question of the London rent tribunals tonight to give the Minister an opportunity of clarifying his policy in the selection of chairmen of the tribunals. From our recent experience, his policy seems to be contradictory and to involve one or two important principles which require settling.
  Members of rent tribunals, like members of new town corporations and of many other quasi-judicial bodies which have been brought into existence in recent years, form a new type of public servant. They are not part of the Civil Service or of the local government service, and in many cases their functions are of such a character as to make it undesirable that they should be an integral part of either of those services. Their decisions have frequently to be clearly outside any form of governmental control. This situation gives rise to two problems. They are subject to arbitrary removal at the instance of the Government, and yet they are assumed to be capable of preserving their complete independence, in functioning in their quasi-judicial capacity.
  The present situation gives very little ground for satisfaction as to the position of these members. Chairmen or otherwise, they have no security of tenure and can be, and, in fact, have been, even dismissed with little or no notice and without being given an opportunity of resigning. Allegations have been made concerning the quality of their work or judgment which they have been given no chance of refuting.
  I propose to raise one or two points to which, I hope, the Minister will be able to give an answer. Before doing so, however, I want to remind him that, although under the 1946 and the 1949 Acts he was given wide powers to deal with the appointment of chairmen and members, I think it fair to say that those powers were not intended for more than the general convenience of the Minister, and were certainly not intended to give him power to play about with the members of the tribunals as though he were playing a game of draughts, which, judging by our recent experience, seems to have been the case.

  535
  The rent tribunals are semi-judicial bodies, and at the time of the last debate hon. Members on both sides of the House thought it a bad thing that, by implication, chairmen and members of these tribunals should have no security. I think I am right in saying that on that occasion it was felt that unless there was some sort of misconduct involved, the members of rent tribunals should be able to feel that their appointments were fairly secure.
  I think it reasonable to suppose that if, ultimately, chairmen and members do not know their position, responsible people will not be ready to serve on rent tribunals. It could even mean that those who do serve will gauge their own conduct in the light of the approbation they can gain from the Minister and not for the proper carrying out of their functions.
  If, for example, a tribunal is faced with a decision which might lead to a High Court action, despite the fact that the tribunal believes that decision to be the right one, it might well give a contrary decision if the Minister is known to object to High Court cases, which, incidentally, is fairly likely to be so in view of Ministerial reluctance to appeal. The mere fact of that unwillingness could govern the decision of a semi-judicial body such as the rent tribunal.
  Indeed, if we look at the incidence of High Court cases recently, as though on a graph, it will be seen that it was only after this unwillingness to appeal was established that they began to increase. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is represented by the Hammersmith Rent Tribunal, and the first High Court case which they were concerned in was over three years and 10 months after it was set up.
  In rather less than the three years immediately following—the answer given to me the other day was typically in accurate; it said there were eight cases—there were seven other cases, one of which was won. Not once did the Ministry attempt to appeal, even though in one case the decision was reached by a special tribunal with a legal chairman. Arising from another case, there was a subsequent successful prosecution at the Old Bailey brought about by the chairman and the clerk of the tribunal.
  536
  In the Pick Vance case, concerning the St. Helen's Tribunal, the decision to appeal to the Lords was taken so late that it was got in with only six hours to spare, and the judgment was unanimous and favoured the tribunal. The flow of High Court cases has tapered off. Few things regarding rent tribunals have been more unfortunate than the pusillanimous attitude of the Ministry towards High Court cases and its downright lack of support for the tribunals, thus encouraging the wrong type of landlord to litigate with almost a guarantee of success.
  In reply to a Question, I was recently told that the Minister's policy when choosing chairmen was to make the best possible appointments. Is this rather smug reply designed to hide the absence of any policy, or does it mean something even more unfortunate? Does it mean that if Mr. X's qualifications are brought to the notice of the Minister and they impress him, he is at once appointed to a tribunal to replace Mr. Y, who, for some reason or other, is not so interesting to the Minister?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): If the hon. Gentleman is making innuendos in a particular case, he ought to specify that case. It is difficult for me to answer generalities.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister will have an opportunity of replying shortly. I shall deal with the matter as I go along, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  A member of the Wimbledon Tribunal, as far as I know satisfactory, had been appointed for 12 months, and a few months ago the Ministry let it be known that his appointment would not be renewed but that someone else would be appointed. The Wimbledon Tribunal objected to this procedure; the Chairman went to see the Minister, and his decision was reversed. In other words, the member remained. Yet, for some reason, the Ministry was determined to find a job for the man who did not succeed in getting that post on the Wimbledon Tribunal. I do not know why it was so urgent to find him a job, but shortly afterwards he was appointed Chairman of the Ealing Tribunal where he replaced a lady who is now Chairman of Hammersmith Tribunal.

  537
  It puzzles me exceedingly why this lady was removed from Ealing Tribunal and sent to Hammersmith in order to make way for this person, against whom I have no complaint, who was put in her place. I cannot understand why the Minister dismissed, with very discourteous short notice, an ex-Service man, 53 years of age, and put in his place a lady of about the same age as Lord Beveridge whom the Minister dismissed for being too old.
  Mr. Marples: What age is that?
  Mr. Rogers: About 70.
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman says that the lady is 70. Is that a fact?
  Mr. Rogers: That is what I am informed.
  Mr. Marples: Does the hon. Gentleman stand by that statement or not?
  Mr. Rogers: I said that I have been so informed. I have not met the lady, and I am putting it forward as the most accurate information which has been supplied to me by those who should know. Does the Minister question the accuracy of that statement? Does he say that she is 20 or 30 years younger?
  Mr. Marples: I shall have my opportunity to reply. The hon. Gentleman is making accusations and allegations. He may or may not be right. I am trying to ascertain with certainty what allegation he is making. Is she 70? It is up to the hon. Gentleman to say what he thinks.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister does not seem to know her age. I am informed that the lady's age is 70, and that is the age at which Lord Beveridge was said to be too old. She was moved to the Hammersmith Tribunal after, I understand, she made a request to be shifted from the previous tribunal. Here again, there was some reason for finding this lady another post, and, in order to make room for the first-mentioned gentleman—I do not want to mention names particularly—the chairmen of two tribunals were moved around and, finally, this gentleman was found a job.
  I consider that the Chairman of the Hammersmith Tribunal was treated with discourtesy. A letter dated 8th September did not reach him until the 14th, terminating his employment on the 30th of the same month. The Minister,
  538
  despite an urgent letter from me, declined to see the other members of that tribunal, who were very unhappy about the peremptory dismissal of the Chairman.
  At one time the Minister seemed to suggest that he wanted legally trained people at the head of the tribunals. Yet, in reply to my Question, he said that his policy is to appoint the best people to the job. It is nonsense to suggest that legal minds do not make mistakes. The courts and the prisons are full of them, and I question whether legally trained chairmen would have a better record than lay chairmen who had only seven or eight cases taken to the High Court out of 5,176.
  I want to assure the Minister that these changes have left a nasty taste in many mouths. I hope he has a satisfactory explanation of these changes, and that he can explain what principles guide his Department in the choice of these people.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: I intervene for a few moments because I feel that the House should not be left with a complete misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman complained about appeals from tribunals not being supported by the Ministry. The fact is that there is no appeal from the decision of a tribunal. The only power there is is the power of the High Court to intervene to quash proceedings if there has been some irregularity. It is not for me to argue at this point whether there should or should not be appeals. I hold very strong views on the subject.
  However, I do think that before the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) comes here to make rather wild accusations, praying in aid what he calls appeals that have not been heard by the High Court, and to attack the Minister of Housing and Local Government, he ought first to get his facts more correct than he has got them. I hope that my hon. Friend, when dealing with the administrative side of the matter, will agree with the statement made by the Minister that the best people to be chairmen of rent tribunals should be those with some legal qualifications.
  10.55 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kensington,

  539
  North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) gave me notice, in the usual way, that he was raising this matter, but I confess that the notice was not as detailed as I should have liked it to have been to enable me to answer his particular accusations. He has raised two points. The first is a general one on rent tribunals and the second relates to particular cases, specifying no individual, yet making innuendoes, which makes it difficult for me to reply.
  On the general proposition of rent tribunals, I would say that my right hon. Friend makes these appointments to the rent tribunals fairly on merit. They have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Almost every appointment he has made, perhaps a new town, perhaps to a rent tribunal, has been of someone who does not belong to a particular political party, but consequent accusations are made that it is unfair. I know of one case in a new town where he appointed a member of the hon. Gentleman's party and my own party said that the appointment was unfair and biased.
  In this particular case to which I think the hon. Gentleman was referring. Hammersmith, a Liberal was replaced by a qualified barrister, and there the hon. Gentleman has been wrong in most of his accusations. The first one was that Lord Beveridge was dismissed as too old at 70 and yet a lady who was appointed in place of the chairman was of the same age. The hon. Gentleman, knowing the opposite sex far better than I do, would not expect me to give the lady's age away, but she was qualified and the hon. Gentleman was about 10 per cent. wrong about her age, and in the wrong direction. So he was completely wrong.
  The second accusation was that these two tribunals were unhappy about these appointments, including that of this lady. He was wrong again in that respect. A member of his own party wrote into the Ministry and dissociated himself from any letter of protest about the dismissal of the chairman—or, rather, the fact that there was not a renewal of the chairman in the office—and the appointment of a new one.
  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is not talking of Hammersmith Tribunal, is he?
  Mr. Marples: I am referring to it openly. The hon. Gentleman referred to it rather obliquely. I am talking about Hammersmith Tribunal.
  A letter came from the third member of the tribunal, a Labour councillor for a North London constituency. I shall not specify which, because I do not want to introduce personalities, and I should not have gone so far if the hon. Gentleman had not put me in a dilemma. It is repugnant to discuss personalities, but what else can I do to refute the allegations the hon. Gentleman has made? I must introduce this matter. A member of the tribunal who is a Labour councillor for a North London constituency said in a letter to my right hon. Friend that he supported the Minister's decision. He did not wish to be associated with any letter of protest.
  So there were people of the hon. Gentleman's party on the side of the Minister. I have been associated with my right hon. Friend now for two years. The hon. Gentleman may say many things against him, but he has made these appointments quite fearlessly, irrespective of party, irrespective of politics, on the basis of who is the best person to do the job. The person who was replaced at Hammersmith as the chairman was not qualified legally. He tried to qualify legally, and he studied law, but, unfortunately, the examiners had not the same high opinion of his abilities as the person himself. He has been replaced by someone who succeeded in the examination and therefore, on that account, I do not think that the appointment is unreasonable.
  The hon. Member for Kensington, North may think it unreasonable, but I must tell him that in the three years, the Hammersmith Rent Tribunal has lost eight cases in the High Court out of all the cases which it has sent there and has, in point of fact, lost more than any other tribunal. That may have something to do with the legal qualifications of its chairman; equally, I agree, it may not, but it is a point that should be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Rogers: They have been majority decisions.
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman may say that the High Court should have a different constitution, or that its

  541
  decisions are wrong, and I cannot give him an answer on that; but the fact is that the Hammersmith Tribunal was wrong more often than any other similar tribunal.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that is an absolute figure, or a percentage figure?
  Mr. Marples: I suppose that it could be given as a percentage figure, but if it was it would be meaningless for the reason that so few cases are remitted to the courts.
  The Act under which the tribunals operate was passed by the Socialist Government in 1946 and amended in 1949, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we are doing our utmost to operate it fairly although, in certain respects, we disagree with it. But it is our duty to operate it and my right hon. Friend has tried his very best to work it with fairness. There is no ordinary machinery of appeal from the decisions of a tribunal. It is not a question of a higher court reversing the decision of a lower court.
  Only when a tribunal appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction, or to have made a wrong determination in law, can action be taken. By jurisdiction I mean what is within its competence to decide. If it has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction, then the rather expensive machinery of the High Court can be set in motion; with the knowledge that the applicant may lose. Consequently, perhaps because of that, the number of cases which have gone to the High Court has been infinitesimal. As I have said, the Hammersmith Tribunal has had no fewer than eight cases lost in the High Court, and that
  542
  figure is in excess of the number of cases lost by any other tribunal.
  I might add that the nearest approach to that figure was from the Paddington Tribunal; and there, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) split the tribunal into two, and gave the old chairman control of the smaller part for three months and he was replaced in 1952.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Did he give a warning?
  Mr. Marples: I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Mr. Stewart: I am told that he did not give a warning.
  Mr. Marples: I must say that it is in the interest of Tribunals generally, and of the efficiency of that with which we are concerned tonight in particular, that the chairman of this one should be replaced in view of the failures so often in the courts. The appointment has been filled by a lady with legal qualifications, and she has, incidentally, rendered excellent service to another tribunal. I do not think that the hon. Member for Kensington, North, who is normally most moderate, is doing his constituency, or the work of the tribunals as a whole, any good when he raises an allegation of this sort without being more specific; and, if he wishes to pursue this matter further, I shall be pleased to consider any specific cases which he may bring to my notice.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Five Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  UGANDA (DR. G. W. SHEPHERD)
  UGANDA (DR. G. W. SHEPHERD)
WEST INDIES
  Transinsular Road, Dominica
  Transinsular Road, Dominica
  Dry Dock Facilities, Port of Spain
  Dry Dock Facilities, Port of Spain
  Controls and Restrictions (Abolition)
  Controls and Restrictions (Abolition)
  WEST END HOTEL (COLOUR BAR)
  WEST END HOTEL (COLOUR BAR)
GOLD COAST
  Retiring Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Retiring Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Mrs. Betty Chapman (Prohibition)
  Mrs. Betty Chapman (Prohibition)
  COLONIAL STUDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM (FACILITIES)
  COLONIAL STUDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM (FACILITIES)
  NYASALAND (OFFICIAL COMMUNIQUE)
  NYASALAND (OFFICIAL COMMUNIQUE)
  KENYA (DISCHARGED OFFICERS)
  KENYA (DISCHARGED OFFICERS)
MALAYA
  Elections
  Elections
  New Schools
  New Schools
  Civil Service (Personnel)
  Civil Service (Personnel)
  WEST AFRICAN TERRITORIES (HEALTH)
  WEST AFRICAN TERRITORIES (HEALTH)
ROYAL NAVY
  Armaments Depot, Beith (Lodging Allowances)
  Armaments Depot, Beith (Lodging Allowances)
  History of the War at Sea
  History of the War at Sea
  Red Sea Patrols
  Red Sea Patrols
  Instructor Lieutenants (Promotion)
  Instructor Lieutenants (Promotion)
SHIPBUILDING
  Yards, Cardiff (Repair Work)
  Yards, Cardiff (Repair Work)
  U.S.S.R. and Poland (British Orders)
  U.S.S.R. and Poland (British Orders)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Tulse Hill
  Tulse Hill
  Call Boxes, London Airport
  Call Boxes, London Airport
  Estate, Leicester
  Estate, Leicester
  Dinas-Powis
  Dinas-Powis
  Stockport
  Stockport
  Exchange Site, Victoria Street
  Exchange Site, Victoria Street
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Inverness
  Inverness
  Glamorgan
  Glamorgan
  Barry
  Barry
  Directories (Sale)
  Directories (Sale)
  Peatling Magna
  Peatling Magna
POST OFFICE
  Housing Estate, Dundee (Facilities)
  Housing Estate, Dundee (Facilities)
  Troops, Malaya (Christmas Parcels)
  Troops, Malaya (Christmas Parcels)
  Unregistered Packets and Letters (Loss Claims)
  Unregistered Packets and Letters (Loss Claims)
  Trade Union Recognition
  Trade Union Recognition
  Basildon New Town (Facilities)
  Basildon New Town (Facilities)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  V.H.F. Broadcasting (Report)
  V.H.F. Broadcasting (Report)
  Television Station Site, East Anglia
  Television Station Site, East Anglia
  Band III
  Band III
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Cranwell Scholarships (Selection Board)
  Cranwell Scholarships (Selection Board)
  Dilutee Engineering Tradesmen
  Dilutee Engineering Tradesmen
  Airfield, Tarrant Rushton (Elevation)
  Airfield, Tarrant Rushton (Elevation)
  Non-Industrial Staff
  Non-Industrial Staff
ROADS
  Garve—Ullapool
  Garve—Ullapool
  Forth Bridge Project
  Forth Bridge Project
  Queensferry Bridge
  Queensferry Bridge
  Double Carriageway Scheme, Tividale
  Double Carriageway Scheme, Tividale
  Staffordshire
  Staffordshire
  Highlands
  Highlands
  Crofter Counties
  Crofter Counties
  Improvements, Construction and Maintenance
  Improvements, Construction and Maintenance
  A.289 and A.226 Junction (Improvement Scheme)
  A.289 and A.226 Junction (Improvement Scheme)
  Tyne Tunnel Scheme
  Tyne Tunnel Scheme
  By-Pass and Bridge Project, Newport
  By-Pass and Bridge Project, Newport
TRANSPORT
  Dartford-Purfleet (Traffic Census)
  Dartford-Purfleet (Traffic Census)
  Electric Vehicles (Driving Licence)
  Electric Vehicles (Driving Licence)
  Thesiger Committee (Report)
  Thesiger Committee (Report)
  Transport Levy (Local Authorities)
  Transport Levy (Local Authorities)
  Motor Vehicles (Two Rear Lights)
  Motor Vehicles (Two Rear Lights)
  Road Haulage Disposal Board
  Road Haulage Disposal Board
  AERODROMES, SCOTLAND
  AERODROMES, SCOTLAND
  OIL POLLUTION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  OIL POLLUTION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
RAILWAYS
  London Plan (Selected Route)
  London Plan (Selected Route)
  Severn Tunnel (Derailment)
  Severn Tunnel (Derailment)
  POSTAL CONVENTION DECISIONS (RATIFICATION)
  POSTAL CONVENTION DECISIONS (RATIFICATION)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Hardship Committee, Belfast (Staff Claims)
  Hardship Committee, Belfast (Staff Claims)
  Rations (Non-Take-up)
  Rations (Non-Take-up)
  F.A.O. (International Reserve)
  F.A.O. (International Reserve)
  TRIAL, EDINBURGH
  TRIAL, EDINBURGH
  BRITISH GUIANA (TROOPS)
  BRITISH GUIANA (TROOPS)
  WASTE PAPER (COLLECTION)
  WASTE PAPER (COLLECTION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Petrol and Oil (Tax)
  Petrol and Oil (Tax)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Missing Children
  Missing Children
  Juvenile Courts (Women Justices)
  Juvenile Courts (Women Justices)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Hospital Board, Birmingham (Schemes)
  Hospital Board, Birmingham (Schemes)
  Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital (Building Work)
  Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital (Building Work)

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

JAPAN AND C.O.C.O.M.
2.36 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE, (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, by leave of the House, may I make a very small correction to an answer to a question which was put to me yesterday? In replying to a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, on a Question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I said that Japan was a member only of the China Committee of the Consultative Group. It is not always easy to remember at short notice what countries are members of these different bodies and what are not. In fact, Japan is a member not only of the China Committee but of the Group as a whole. I should like to take this opportunity of putting my earlier statement right.

EX-CABINET MINISTER'S PRESS ARTICLE
2.37 p.m.
LORD VANSITTARThad given notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government:—

1. What is their attitude on the subject of an article which has recently appeared in an Egyptian paper by a British ex-Cabinet Minister;

2. Whether such articles are calculated to assist in the discussions to be held with the Egyptian Government;

3. Whether it is true that the editor of the Egyptian paper in question was interned as a pro-Nazi during the war.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, on a point of Order with reference to this Question. Whilst I am not exactly suggesting that the Question is out or order, I would draw attention to the passage in Erskine May which deprecates references by one House to proceedings
126
in another House and. speeches by Members in the other House. This Question is not concerned with a speech but it is, of course, directed at a distinguished Member of the other House. Erskine May says that the reason for the Standing Order is "to prevent undue violent interchanges between the Members of the two Houses." We have not a Standing Order concerning it, but Erskine May contains that passage. Could the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House say any thing. I do not say to answer this question but to deprecate the growing habit of wrangling between Members of the two Houses?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I am not sure that it is appropriate for me to pronounce upon it, but it does not seem to me that the question has any relation to the Standing Order. As I understand it, the Standing Order relates to criticism by one House of proceedings in the other. That practice is currently observed: that, apart from Ministerial statements on points of policy, you do not refer in one House to what has taken place in another. I am not going to anticipate what my noble friend will say in answer to this Question, but the Question is directed not to what a particular person, who happens to be a Member of another House, has said in that House, but, as I understand it, to what he has written in some foreign newspaper. It seems to me that we should be stretching Rules of Order. and, indeed, any convention, very far to make it impossible for a Member to ask a Question on any matter of public interest if it happened to affect Members of one or other House of Parliament. Indeed, it is generally a Member of one or other House of Parliament who is connected with matters of public interest.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Viscount, the Acting Leader of the House, is mistaken, I think, in saying there is a Standing Order: there is not. All I thought it well to do was to draw attention to the fact that this sort of thing will invite reprisals from elsewhere and does not make for good and decent relations between the two Houses.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope the subject matter of the Question on the

127
Order Paper (I do not mean the Question, but the incident) is not likely to be a common precedent.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I now beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: In answer to the three points in the noble Lords' Question, as regards the first point, Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the journalistic activities of members of the Opposition. As regards the second, such articles are not helpful. As regards the third, the director-general of the newspaper, who is, I understand, responsible for its policy, was interned for security reasons in 1942. The editor was not.
LORD VANSITTART: Will the noble Marquess, or any other noble Lord, kindly examine the solemn undertaking which we all give on becoming Privy Counsellors, and will he not there find that we vow to assist Her Majesty's authorities "against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, States and potentates"? What I want to know is how, in view of that pledge, when Her Majesty's authorities are engaged in vital negotiations, it can be lawful for a member of the Privy Council to incite the adversary to intransigence—and, moreover, to receive remuneration for so doing.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is rather a long way from the first of the three questions included in the noble Lord's Question, and I am not prepared to deal with it at any length at this stage.
EARL JOWITT: I very much hope that the Government will adhere to that attitude, and not lay down that any Privy Counsellor, or any Member of this House, is not entitled to state what he thinks on any public issue. Is there anything which is unhelpful in asserting at the present time that the retention of our troops in Egypt must be based on agreement and not on force?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As regards the last question, I think the whole tone of this particular article is regarded as unhelpful to the negotiations which are going on.
EARL JOWITT: That was the substance of the article. There is nothing unhelpful in that, is there?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Has the noble Marquess read it?
LORD VANSITTART: The whole point is that the article was published in a paper of the country with which we are engaged in delicate negotiations. Is that consonant with the undertaking given by Privy Counsellors?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is becoming a serious question, because the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, under Privilege of Parliament, is now charging a Privy Counsellor with having broken his Oath. If that is true, I think we should have this article laid before Parliament so that we may know. I have read the article and there is nothing more in it than a free expression of opinions shared by many people. The Government must take action. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, cannot come here and accuse a fellow Privy Counsellor of breaking his Oath unless he can produce evidence.
LORD VANSITTART: I have not come here to accuse anybody of breaking his Oath. I asked a perfectly plain Question. Perhaps the noble Viscount himself can answer. Has he read our undertaking as Privy Counsellors?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Who?
LORD VANSITTART: You.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am a Privy Counsellor—
LORD VANSITTART: Have you recently read the undertaking which you gave?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then not only has Mr. Bevan broken his Oath as a Privy Counsellor, but I have broken my Oath as a Privy Counsellor. How can I argue about the Privy Council here? I am not aware that anything should be done by Parliament to prevent the free expression of opinion in this country and in the world. I believe that that is helpful to the interests of this country and the interests of peace.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Obviously there is nothing on which it is alleged that this Government could appropriately take action.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, with great hesitation, I should like to take up a point raised by the noble and learned

129
Earl, Lord Jowitt, whose knowledge of the law is, of course, far greater than mine. Surely it is not true to say that anyone, any Privy Counsellor in and out of Parliament has the right to say what he likes on anything. He is subject to the law of treason like anyone else.
EARL JOWITT: He is subject to the law, but it is not part of our law that people are precluded from stating their honest opinions, and I hope they never will be.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: There is nothing in the oath of a Privy Counsellor which prevents him from exercising the common right of free speech.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I want to put a supplementary question, arising from the reply of the Government on this Question. Are Her Majesty's Government not aware that this article was written not for an Egyptian paper but for an Indian paper, and syndicated, and therefore the writer clearly had no responsibility for what paper it was eventually published in?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not know for what paper this article was primarily written, but obviously I could not accept the noble Lord's argument that because it was written for one paper the author has no responsibility for its appearing in another. With a syndicated article, it is generally possible to limit the countries in which that particular article appears.
LORD FARINGDON: I think the noble Marquess has misunderstood me. I was suggesting that the somewhat dubious background of the director of the, paper in which the article was published in Egypt has no relevance to the publication of the article itself.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: All I can do is to answer the Question which I was asked: what was the particular item of the back history of the director?—not the editor but the director—and those particulars I have given.
LORD HENDERSON: In view of the fact that we are discussing Mr. Bevan's article, and Members are forming opinions without having any knowledge of what the article contains, may I ask whether the Government will publish the
130
article so that Members may know exactly what was said?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. It is really no part of Her Majesty's Government's duty to abuse, if I may so put it, the recognised procedure of the publication by a Government of important papers by giving further circulation to this particular article.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If the Government do not know what the article was, how do they come to answer and say that it was very unhelpful?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Because the Question was asked, and I presume that my noble friend and his associates in the Foreign Office, for the purposes of answering that Question, read the article, formed an opinion, and, quite properly, as the Question is on the Order Paper, expressed that opinion to the House.
LORD VANSITTART: May I, by leave of the House, explain that the fundamental reason why I asked this Question is that a procedure of this kind seems to me to cut at the very root of diplomacy?

MYXOMATOSIS IN WILD RABBITS
2.44 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question on the subject of wild rabbits which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what developments there have been in regard to myxomatosis in wild rabbits since this matter was discussed in the course of the debate on food and agriculture on November 11 last.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I must apologise for the length of this answer but I do not think it will prove contentious. Since the debate in your Lordships' House on November 11, five further outbreaks of myxomatosis have been confirmed, making eight in all. The disease has now spread from Kent and Sussex to East Anglia. The Myxomatosis Advisory Committee considered the new

131
situation created by these further outbreaks at its third meeting on December 10. After a full discussion, it agreed that attempts to stamp out the disease in existing centres of infection by the trapping and gassing of rabbits or other measures could no longer effectively influence the course of the disease. These efforts are accordingly being stopped. This does not necessarily mean that the disease will survive the winter and that we must expect a rapid spread of it next spring and summer. Experience in other countries gives no clear indication of what may happen in Great Britain. It may be that the disease will die out from natural causes before next spring, particularly if there is a hard winter.
Should the disease fail to survive the winter, the Advisory Committee will need to consider whether or not it should be reintroduced and, if not, what practical steps might be taken to try to prevent its reintroduction. If, however, the disease is still present in the spring, or is reintroduced, the Committee will need to consider whether it should be allowed to take its course, or whether positive measures should be taken to stimulate its spread as a means of exterminating wild rabbits, coupled with other measures such as trapping and gassing. Full regard must, of course, be paid to the humanitarian aspect: and also to the need for protecting domestic rabbits from infection so far as practicable.
I would emphasise that the wild rabbit is a pest whose damage to food production far outweighs its value as food and fur. All desirable and practicable measures should be taken to destroy rabbits, and this is, of course, the object of the Pests Bill which was published on Monday. These powers to intensify measures for the destruction of rabbits will, in the Government's view, be necessary in any case and will be still more necessary if myxomatosis should spread next year. The Advisory Committee have stressed that it is essential that outbreaks of the disease should be followed by mopping-up operations so as to kill off any rabbits that may escape infection.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for the full answer he has given, I should like to ask two supplementary questions arising out of it. In the first place, I should like to
132
know whether the noble Lord has any information about the percentage of mortality of rabbits suffering from or infected by this disease in infected areas; and secondly, whether due publicity will be given to the continuation of measures for the suppression and extermination of rabbits in areas to which the disease has not yet spread, so as to ensure that there is no relaxation in exterminating this nuisance to the food production of this country.
LORD CARRINGTON: As regards the noble Lord's first question, I may say that the only countries in which there is experience of the disease are France and Australia, and there about 90 per cent. of the rabbits were killed off by the disease. I am afraid I cannot say what has happened in this country. These are early days, and the areas infected are very small. As regards the second question, I can give the assurance, and, as I say, one of the objects of the Pests Bill which was before your Lordships on Monday last is to intensify the campaign against rabbits in this country.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Can the noble Lord tell us whether only wild rabbits are susceptible to this disease, or are other pests, such as wild hares also susceptible?
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, tame rabbits get it, and in France three hares have been known to be infected with the disease—but only three: no other animals.

JUVENILE COURTS
2.52 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the constitution of juvenile courts.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, it has been the intention of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Rules governing the constitution of juvenile courts in order to secure, as soon as this becomes practicable, that all juvenile courts should contain at least one man and at least one woman. I am of the opinion that this stage has now been reached, and I propose to

133
amend the Statutory Rules to provide for mixed courts in every case, except in emergency when a court may he composed of two men or two women. It is desirable to allow time to add women justices to the few juvenile court panels which still do not have an adequate number, and for this reason it is intended to bring the new Rules into effect in England and Wales from January, 1955, and in Scotland from May, 1955.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is perfectly clear that the new Rules will apply to London equally with the rest of the country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer to that question is that the jurisdiction there rests with the Home Secretary, and it is my impression, which I will confirm, that that is already the position in London, where two women or two male justices can now sit in an emergency.
EARL JOWITT: May I tell the noble and learned Lord that the announcement he has made will give great satisfaction to many of those who have been doing this work?

INVERNESS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

COASTAL FLOODING (ACREAGE PAYMENTS) SCHEME (No. 2), 1953
2.54 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON rose to move. That the Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme (No. 2), 1953, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is the second scheme to be made under Sections 13 and 14 of the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1953, and its purpose is to provide; financial help in 1954 to promote the rehabilitation of arable land and pasture in England damaged by the disastrous salt water floods that occurred in January, 1953. A great deal of work has been done in 1953 but practically all of the salt damaged lands will need
134
treatment in 1954 and probably in many cases for some years to come if any progress is to be made towards restoring the soil structure and fertility. In order to encourage the farmers of arable land to get on with the autumn sowings of suitable crops, where this has been recommended by the county agricultural executive committees as the best kind of treatment, my right honourable friend decided that it was necessary to announce in advance—subject to Parliamentary approval—the terms and conditions proposed in this scheme for acreage payments in 1954. This was done in a Press notice which was issued on October 22. This scheme is almost identical with the 1953 scheme, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme (No. 2), 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS AND SERVANTS) (No. 1) REGULATIONS, 1953
2.55 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to move, That the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 1) Regulations, 1953, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 24 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, requires my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply to make regulations for the payment of compensation to employees of privately owned iron and steel companies which came into public ownership within the meaning of the Iron and. Steel Act, 1949, who suffered, or suffer, loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of nationalisation. The Draft Regulations now before your Lordships' House follow the principles for compensation on nationalisation laid down in the regulations made by the previous Government and approved by your Lordships' House, with only two minor amendments with which I need not trouble your Lordships. These Regulations introduce no new point of principle; they have been approved by all concerned, including the T.U.C., and I hope your Lordships also will give them your approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 1) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS AND SERVANTS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1953.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Section 24 of the Act to which I have just referred, also requires my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply to make Regulations for the payment of compensation to employees of publicly owned iron and steel companies, and to employees of the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain, who suffered loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments and pension rights in consequence of de-nationalisation, The Draft Regulations now before your Lordships' House follow the principles of the compensation regulations for employees of the Road Haulage Executive who suffered loss on account of de-nationalisation, which your Lordships' House approved on July 30 last. I hope your Lordships will also be good enough to approve these Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 2) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE FURNISHINGS INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 2) ORDER, 1953.
2.57 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to move, That the Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1953, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is made under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. It amends the Order made in 1951 which imposes a levy on the lace furnishings section of the lace industry to finance the promotion of exports. The basis of calculation of the levy is the amount of yarn
136
acquired in what is rather picturesquely referred to as a base year and it is the wish of the industry that the base year should be brought forward annually. The purpose of this Amending Order, which, if your Lordships approve this Motion, will come into operation on January 1, 1954, is therefore to advance the base year from 1951 to 1952, and to establish new rates of charge to ensure that the income from the levy remains approximately the same as before; that is to say, at £15,000 a year. Representative organisations of both sides of the industry have been consulted and have raised no objections. Efforts so far have been mainly aimed at increasing exports of lace furnishings to Canada; but, with the reopening of the Australian market, the industry have now turned their attention to that country also.
Moved, That the Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 2) ORDER, 1953
2.59 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, That the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1953, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order amends the Order made in 1951 which imposes levies on all sections of the lace industry to provide funds for scientific research. The basis of calculation for the levy is, for some sections, by reference to the value of yarn acquired in a base year, and for other sections to the number of machines standing during the period for which the levy is payable. The present amending Order, which will also, subject to your Lordships' approval, come into operation on January 1, 1954, advances the base year, in relation to yarn acquired, from 1951 to 1952, and establishes new rates of charge to ensure that the total income from the levy continues at approximately £10,000 a year, and that the proportions paid by the various sections of the industry remain unchanged.
Again, representative organisations of employers and employees have been consulted, and no objections have been raised to these proposed changes. The proceeds of this levy go to the Lace Research Association which is doing very useful work for this important industry. The Association is financed partly by the levy, partly by contributions directly from industry and partly by a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I hope that these proposals will meet with your Lordships' approval also, and, accordingly, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Macroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
3.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, these Orders which I have to move are entirely formal. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Bude-Stratton, the Urban District of Cromer and the Urban District of Darton, copies of which Orders were laid before this House on the 8th of December, 1953, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JURIES AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
3.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment and to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is not desirable to cast upon a jury which has convicted the accused of murder, the further duty of answering questions which may determine his punishment. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, and to move a
138
Resolution of dissent in respect of one of its more important recommendations. We shall all admire the devotion and energy of the members of this Commission. They were appointed in May, 1949, and their Report was made in September, 1953: that is to say, more than four years after—fifty-two months I think. It is apparent, from looking at the Blue Book which contains their Report—it does not contain the evidence; that has been made separately available—that an immense amount of trouble has been taken by the members of this Commission before arriving at their recommendations. The Report is some 500 pages in length and contains, I think, sixteen Appendices. It is clear, from reading it, that inquiries have been made on the Continent of Europe and in America, as well as the taking of a great deal of evidence, which was needed by the Commission, in this country. I yield to no one in my admiration and respect for the diligence with which the members of the Commission have pursued their task, but I think it a little unfortunate that the membership did not include anybody who had ever had the responsibility of trying a case involving a capital charge. It did include a gentleman who is a Recorder, but Recorders cannot try people for murder.
I think it is useful, for a moment, to remind ourselves of the origin of this Commission. Your Lordships may recall that in the year 1948 the Government of the day introduced the Criminal Justice Bill, based largely on the admirable work which had been done ten years before by my noble friend, Lord Templewood, when he was Home Secretary. The Bill passed Second Reading, went through Committee and came to Report in another place. On Report, a new clause was proposed which would have provided that for five years there should be no such thing as a capital sentence, and that we should make the experiment of seeing how this abolition would turn out. The Government were opposed to this new clause. The Home Secretary of the day, Mr. Chuter Ede, said so, and after he had made his speech up rose a private Member and proceeded to inform the, House of Commons that the opinion of a very much respected and distinguished man, the late Sir Alexander Paterson, had changed, and that he, who had hitherto seen objections to attempting to abolish capital punishment, had now joined the

139
Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment and was a subscriber to that Society.
This information obviously greatly influenced the House of Commons, for no one is held in greater respect by everyone who has considered the problems of penology than the late Sir Alexander Paterson. He was the adviser of the Home Office. I knew him as a man who was firmly convinced that prolonged sentences of imprisonment did nothing but harm, and I found it very difficult to believe that this information as to his change of view was correct. And others who knew him better than I did also greatly doubted it. However that may be, the House divided on the new clause, and the new clause was added to the Bill by a majority. The Criminal Justice Bill then came to this House, and some of us took objection to the new clause, and presented arguments against it, and in Committee of this House the new clause was struck out, and the Criminal Justice Bill was returned to the House of Commons without any such provision in it. I claim that in so acting your Lordships' House unquestionably reflected sober public opinion, and that it is so may be regarded as established by the fact that when the Bill went back to the House of Commons, the Government of the day made no attempt to put the clause back. They accepted the decision, and that has been the situation from that day.
In those circumstances, it was not unnatural that the late Government should want to do something on the subject, and, consequently, this Commission was appointed. The terms of appointment were such that it had no authority to inquire or to advise as to whether capital punishment should be abolished, but it had terms of reference which required it to consider and report whether liability under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified, and, if so, to what extent and by what means, and what changes in the existing law would be required.
The Commission undertook their heavy task and listened to a large body of evidence, and this Blue Book is the Report. I am far from saying that some of the recommendations of the Commission are not very wise. I certainly do not seek
140
to challenge them or discuss them to-day. Yet there are some recommendations which are of doubtful value. I mention one. By a majority the Commission have recommended that the age which a man who commits murder must have attained if he is to be liable to the capital sentence should be raised from 18 to 21 years. That is not the point I am raising now, but I observe in passing that I very much question that recommendation. I do not see why we should inform a youth who has murderous instincts in his heart that he can do what he likes, that lie can commit any crime that he likes, but one thing we guarantee him: if he is not 21, he cannot be hanged. However, that is not the point I want to raise to-day.
I think the way in which the Commission have dealt with what are called the M'Naghten Rules will raise a grave question hereafter. The M'Naghten Rules are rules laid down by the law on what establishes criminal responsibility. It is not a medical question: it is a legal question. The Commission make some recommendations under that heading which I think will need examination when the time conies. But the particular recommendation to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is another one. If your Lordships have copies of this book before you and will turn to page 190, you will see there that the Commission discusses, in Chapter 8, "General Proposals for Amendment of the Law of Murder." In one respect I take the view that the Commission reached a very wise conclusion. They had to consider the suggestion that the crime of murder should be divided into two classes and the question should be posed whether a person committed murder of the first degree or murder of the second degree. They have rejected any suggestion of that sort, and in my judgment quite rightly; for murder is not a crime of two degrees; it is a crime of infinite variety, and I think it is fundamentally wrong to attempt to adopt a method, which I believe some foreign countries have adopted, of asking a jury whether the man who is convicted of murder is guilty of murder of the first degree, with a certain consequence, or of the second degree, with a lesser consequence. So far I go with the Commission and I am grateful for the full way in which they argued the case.
But they then raise what they regard as their principal problem. They call it their "problem." I have been at pains to read this bulky document to find out what that problem is, and it is manifest, in reading the Report, that they were principally concerned with the fact that, as the law stands, a man who has been convicted of murder by a jury is automatically by force of law sentenced to death. Yet there are a large number of cases in which the Home Secretary, exercising the duties of his office, will advise that the prerogative of mercy he used. According to the Commission, this automatic sentence of death represents the rigidity of the law, and apparently the Commission have set themselves to work to try to reduce the rigidity and introduce some flexibility in the matter. I submit my opinion with all respect to the Commission, but I doubt very much whether we ought to tamper with the view that anyone who has been proved to have taken the life of another human being feloniously shall be liable to the capital sentence and will receive it. it seems to me that the fact that so awful a crime, whatever be the motive, is followed by this dreadful punishment, may well be a necessary mark which the community puts upon murder and one of the ways in which we seek to discourage people from committing it. I may be wrong about that.
Cases sometimes may arise—I have known them when I was Home Secretary—in which the passing of the death sentence on some misguided creature who has perpetrated what is called a "mercykilling"—which is murder—is none the less followed inevitably by the Home Secretary's advice of a reprieve, and I appreciate that that is a situation which deeply concerns some good and sensible people. It is an aspect of the matter which greatly affected the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury who gave evidence before the Commission and who pointed to this as a distressing situation. But I still think, and so do many other people, that there is a great deal to be said for maintaining the view that the hand that commits this dreadful crime earns this dread sentence.
I notice that in paragraph 48 on page 16 of this Report there is a reference to this conflict between the inevitable sentence of death and the suggestion of reprieve. It is as follows:
142
"The other ground of criticism is the undesirability of pronouncing the death sentence in so many cases in which it is not carried out. This was emphatically voiced by the Archbishop of Canterbury."
I should like to say I have a letter from the most reverend Primate which explains that he is very heavily engaged and cannot attend your Lordships' House to-day, but he is here quoted as saying:
"It is a very grave thing that the solemn formula of the death sentence should almost as often as not be followed by a reprieve which cancels it. …It is intolerable that this solemn and deeply significant procedure should be enacted again and again when in almost half the cases the consequence will not follow. …If this solemn act is to remain, it must normally mean what it says and carry the consequences which it imposes. Otherwise it is reduced to a mere formula: and in such a matter a mere empty formula is a degradation of the majesty of the law, and dangerous to society.'"
That was the view presented by the most reverend Primate.
Amongst witnesses who held a different opinion were Sir John Anderson (now the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley), Lord Samuel, and Mr. Justice Byrne. Sir John Anderson presented the view which I have endeavoured to summarise to your Lordships. As regards my noble friend Lord Samuel, the Report says:
"Lord Samuel also did not think much force could be given to the Archbishop's argument."
And they quote him as saying:
"'To maintain a degree of uncertainty as to what would happen in marginal cases may be very useful in retaining a deterrent effect on potential criminals.'"
That is the view which I myself prefer. But, at any rate, the Commission on page 190 faced what they called their problem. Really and truly, the Commission regarded their problem as this: "What suggestions can we make which will reduce the number of instances in which the capital penalty is imposed?" On page 190 they discuss the proposal to give the judge a discretion and to leave him to say what the conviction should be after the verdict of "Guilty of murder" has been pronounced. They discuss that, and come to the conclusion that they cannot recommend it, largely on the ground, apparently, that the judges very much objected. I can well understand the view of a High Court judge that, while he is prepared to administer if law, if the law

143
says a sentence of death follows conviction, he feels it is throwing a fearful burden upon him to say: "Well, now the thing is before you; you must decide what is to be done with this man." At any rate, that was the objection.
Then the Commission, having come to the conclusion that they could not put this task upon the judge, observed with great logical force that there was only one other body on whom they could put it, and that was the jury—and that is set out on page 194. The Report of the Commission says (paragraph 551):
"If discretion is to be vested in the court, but is not to be exercised by the judge, the only alternative is that the jury should be given discretion to determine the sentence and to decide whether a person whom they convict of murder should be sentenced to death or to a lesser punishment."
I wish more than ever that on this Commission there had been a member who had actually had the task of discharging, as a judicial person, the duties that fall on a judge trying a murder. The notion that a jury could be asked to decide what the punishment should be is, I think, a little extraordinary. A jury, my Lords, is an excellent judge of fact, and will often find you an answer to a question which you cannot answer yourself. Twelve citizens, chosen by chance, put on that occasion in the jury box, sworn to listen to the evidence and to return a true verdict, form an excellent tribunal for coming to a conclusion of fact. But I myself—I speak subject to correction—do not know of any case in which an English jury is entrusted with the business of deciding how a man should be punished. That appears to me to be a most doubtful proposal. However, the Commission come to the conclusion that they must put it on the jury.
They go on to point out the pros and cons, and they adopt a rather curious course. The Commission begin by outlining a possible scheme, and they say that, novel and unfamiliar as the proposal is, it will be helpful if at the outset, before examining it on merits, they attempt to show the shape it might assume in practice. They suggest that such a system is quite workable in a scheme which is set out on page 195. I invite your Lordships to consider this workable scheme. The first provision says:
"The jury would not, as in some countries, be asked to say whether the sentence should
144
be death or imprisonment, but if they convict the accused of murder they would be required to find specifically whether there are any extenuating circumstances."
You might think that if that is to be the test there ought to be some definition of "extenuating circumstances." But the next observation in this paragraph is:
"'Extenuating circumstances' will not be defined by Statute, for the same reasons for which we have found it impossible to define degrees of murder. The decision of the jury would be within their unfettered discretion and in no sense governed by principles of law."
That seems to me to throw a difficult task on the jurymen. Then it is suggested that:
"Full information about the prisoner's character, antecedents, mental condition, etc., should so far as possible be put before the jury before they consider the issue of extenuating circumstances."
I invite your Lordships to note the words "so far as possible." Anyone who has been Home Secretary, like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and myself, knows perfectly well that in considering whether to recommend a reprieve the officials of the Home Office take enormous trouble to collect all the information about the family of the man, as to how he has behaved when in custody, and so on, in order that a conclusion may be reached. It is difficult to see how all that information can be put before a jury. But it is only to be, "so far as possible."
There is then a provision that in England you must have from the jury a unanimous verdict that there were extenuating circumstances; in Scotland, apparently, a majority verdict would do. Then there is this provision:
"When the jury exercised their discretion in favour of the prisoner, they would not be required to state the reasons for their finding."
Next there is this passage:
"A finding of extenuating circumstances would not be merely a recommendation, but would be binding on the judge, who would thereby be precluded from pronouncing the sentence of death and obliged to impose a lesser sentence."
The lesser sentence, they go on to say, must be imprisonment for life—a form of punishment at which I shudder. It has long been the tradition in the Home Office that long imprisonment does nothing but destroy the man, body and soul; and although nominally people may be ordered imprisonment for life—
LORD CHORLEY: Surely, the noble and learned Viscount will agree that the Commission make it clear that when they say "life sentence," they mean life sentence in the ordinary way, by which remission would be earned by goad conduct.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should think it does not mean a life sentence, but that they should be let out in accordance with the ordinary practice. Whether it is right in the case of any and every murderer after so many years to let him out as a free man is a matter which may have to be considered. They go on to say that this plan would not interfere with the prerogative of mercy about which the Home Secretary has the duty of advising. They then say:
"Briefly, therefore, the proposal we shall consider is that if the jury convict the accused of murder they should then be required, after being given all available relevant information that might justify sentence of death not being passed, to consider whether there are extenuating circumstances, and that, if they find that there are, the judge should be precluded from passing the sentence of death and required to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life."
Having put forward this sketch, the Commission, in the Report, discuss how it will work. They endeavour to face up to some very obvious difficulties. They say at the top of page 196 that it will be necessary to divide a trial for murder into two parts. In the first part, the jury would have to reach the conclusion: Is the man in the dock proved to have committed this crime, and is it murder? I suppose on that half of the trial the defence of an alibi would be available. He could show, or endeavour to show: "I was not there and, therefore, I could not have done it." I suppose on that part of the trial it would be open to the accused to prove that what he did he did in self defence, and he or his counsel could also argue that it really was not murder but was the lesser crime of manslaughter.
They go on and say that when the first part of the trial is thus concluded, and the jury find a verdict of murder, the second part of the trial, which would be directed to the issue of extenuating circumstances, would begin. Extenuating circumstances, your Lordships will remember, are not to be defined, but the jury are to be invited to find: "Do you
146
find extenuating circumstances or do yon not?" They discussed the difficulty which would arise supposing that the accused pleaded guilty. They rightly point out that really a trial judge dissuades the accused from pleading guilty; he very often directs a plea of "Not guilty to be entered in order that the matter may be considered. So pass by that. Then they face the difficulties, and it appears to me that the difficulties are overwhelming. The first thing they say the judge should do after the verdict of "Guilty" is that he should address the jury. He should tell them that the sentence prescribed, by the law for murder is death "unless you jurymen find extenuating circumstances." They next discuss what are the parts to be played by the various counsel in the case. The defence, according to this suggestion, are then to address the jury and say what occurs to them to say. Whether the prosecution can address the jury or not is not quite clear to me. Finally, the judge is to sum up.
Having had some experience of this class of case—not, of course, to be compared with the experience of the Lord Chief Justice and others—I have tried to visualise what this second part of the trial would be like. You have a jury which has just been through the agonising duty of forming a conclusion as to whether a man is proved to have committed a murder. It must in many cases wear them out. Then the judge is to say to them: "Now, gentlemen, do not imagine that your duty is over. Come back to-morrow, and you will then undertake the second part of your task." The counsel for the defence, I should suppose, would use his opportunity to make an appeal to the jury to find extenuating circumstances. By that time, if he is a good counsel, he has probably sized up the jury and knows that that man and that woman are very much affected by this, and he would press his argument specially upon them. The counsel for the prosecution would sit by. The Commission rightly recognised that it would be intolerable for the prosecution in a murder case to "demand the death penalty." That is not the way in which counsel conduct these prosecutions. They are concerned only to see that the evidence is fairly given, and they present the case without heat, without passion and

147
without the smallest desire to secure any result except the result that is fair and just. The judge is then to sum up to the jury whether there are or are not extenuating circumstances. There is to be no definition of "extenuating circumstances," and I do not envy the position of a criminal judge who has, in those circumstances, to discharge this task.
I recognise that the Commission saw the objections to the plans which they put forward. In my submission, the objections are really overwhelming. They seem to think that the proposal they make has the great advantage that it would "solve their problem." If your Lordships would be good enough to look at page 199, paragraph 568, you will find that the Commission says:
"The signal advantage of jury discretion is that it would solve our main problem. It would make the law of murder flexible."
I am not at all convinced that we want to make the law of murder flexible, for the reasons which I have indicated and which Lord Samuel formulated when he gave evidence before the Commission. They concede that there would probably be a number of cases in which the jury would be swayed by emotion and would agree to find extenuating circumstances and thereby prevent the dreadful penalty being pronounced. But, visualising it as well and as impartially as I can, I do not see how this proposal could possibly receive the approval of Parliament or of the country.
I am deeply sorry to make this comment on the recommendations of the Commission, some members of which I know and respect, but I cannot help thinking that these four years and more of meditation on this subject has not led them in this respect to a wise conclusion. I wish when they were formulating this idea they had put it to some of those whom they called as witnesses. I never heard anything about it, and they were good enough to ask me to give evidence. I think I could have called their attention to some of the difficulties which arise. It is this effort to solve "our problem" to render the law of murder flexible which, to my mind, is the key to this Report. I make bold to say that as we have it the law in this respect is about right. It is absolutely right that we
148
should have, by virtue of the law, a provision of what is the punishment on proof of murder. The further provision that the sentence should be mitigated and a reprieve advised in cases which justify it is a provision very wisely left in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Reading the debates in the House of Commons on the Criminal Justice Act, I noticed some words, spoken by a great master of English speech, on this discretion which is entrusted to the Home Secretary. I would ask the leave of your Lordships to read these few sentences from that speech (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 453, col. 1439):
"One of the great privileges and advantages we have in our present system of procedure is that the Home Secretary is unfettered as to the advice which should be tendered in the use of the Royal Prerogative. At every point in our system of criminal justice the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused. At every point in the subsequent consideration of a capital sentence, when it has been passed, the same bias is shown in favour of the convicted person. But when justice and the law have done their best within their limits, when precedents have been searched and weighed, mercy still roams around the prison seeking for some chink by which she can creep in."
Those, my Lords, were the words of the present Prime Minister who himself has been Home Secretary: and they are words of truth. It is a great mistake, I venture to think, to try to interfere with the system which we have.
I mention only one other point. If you are going to entrust the business to the jury of determining whether there are extenuating circumstances, by what standard are they going to measure the case? If you leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State, he has a great Department which studies every instance, which puts before him the accepted practice, the regular rule; and you get a level of decision between one case and another. But a jury is summoned only once: a citizen would indeed be unfortunate if he were called upon to serve twice on a jury to determine whether there were extenuating circumstances. He has not got a standard; and it seems to me, therefore, to be undesirable that we should accept this recommendation. I have ventured to bring this before your Lordships' House because I hope that the opinion which may be formed here may be of help to the Government and to the

149
country. Here we have Members who can speak with real knowledge and authority on the subject. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is not desirable to cast upon a jury which has convicted the accused of murder, the further duty of answering questions which may determine his punishment.—(Viscount Simon.)
3.42 p.m.
LORD SALTER: Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, would he be good enough to add a word on one point? He stressed the great importance in the debate in the other place of the statement which was made late at night, and just before the Division, that Sir Alexander Paterson had changed his view and had become a member of the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: And a subscriber.
LORD SALTER: Does the noble and learned Viscount recall that within twenty-four hours it was made clear that this statement was completely inaccurate? Unless my memory deceives me, Mr. Chuter Ede made it, quite clear.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I have always maintained the view that that statement was quite inaccurate and also that it had a great deal to do with obtaining the majority which, against the advice of the Government, put that clause into the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, although there is no sort of Party interest in this matter it might be not unnatural that I, who have had the honour of holding the office of Lord Chancellor for a long time, should, very briefly, express my views. The noble and learned Viscount who has moved this Motion made it plain that it had nothing to do with the question of deciding whether or not capital punishment should continue—and he was quite right. That is a grave question to which right-thinking men should address themselves. I will only say that, having thought about it a great deal—I can honestly say, having worried about it a good deal—I have now come to the conclusion that I am not by any means so certain as I was a few years ago as to what is the right answer. When the Criminal Justice Act was before this
150
House I was one of those who took the view and, I say quite frankly, advised behind the scenes, that we should insist upon the retention of capital punishment. All I say now is that the more I think about the matter the more worried I become and the more uncertain I feel. But I would emphasise again that that has nothing to do with our discussion here to-day. But whatever conclusion we ultimately reach on that problem, I feel that we must face up to that problem frankly and boldly, and must not try to arrive at: the abolition of capital punishment by a mere side issue or subterfuge.
I say that for this reason. In their Report—I am quoting from paragraph 571—the Royal Commission say this:
" In the past. British juries, by perverse verdicts…did…much…to bring the law into conformity with the developing moral conceptions…in the field of capital punishment."
What the Commission had in mind, apparently, in saying this was that it was a notorious fact that in those days the death penalty was liable to be awarded for stealing goods over the value of 5s. from a dwelling-house, and it was notorious that juries used to find that the goods which were stolen were not of that value—completely perverse verdicts. Where Lord Ellenborough and his brethren went wrong was in thinking that if you altered that law you would bring about a. diminution in the standard of honesty. They did not realise that by creating a lesser punishment juries would bring in a verdict of "Guilty" where they had. previously brought in a verdict of "Not guilty." Nothing annoys me more than for people to brush on one side the opinions of judges on any question of this sort by saying, "Look what Lord Ellenborough said. The judges have always been against any reform of the law." That, of course, is completely and farcically untrue. The Royal Commission liken this to the cases whereby British juries, by perverse verdicts, have tried to bring the law into line with modern opinion, and they go on:
"It may well be argued that the men and women of the juries may be regarded as a microcosm of the community, who will reflect the changing attitudes of society as a whole to the infliction of capital punishment…"
If they mean by this that this is an indirect way of getting rid of capital punishment, I think that thi1 is a completely

151
wrong line to take. You should deal with the question of capital punishment only in a bold and frank way. I do not know whether that is their view, because in paragraph 577 they say that they do not believe that the system would in practice:
"…work in such a way as to be used as a device to suspend or abolish capital punishment."
I can state my views on this matter, and I believe the views of those with whom I am habitually closely associated, in a very few words. I think the scheme here propounded is completely unworkable. As the noble and learned Viscount has suggested, the Royal Commission seems to have approached the question by first formulating the problem and then trying to find a way out. The problem was enunciated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and any statement he makes certainly demands my prima facie support. I know he would not mind, if he were here, my saying that on this particular matter I completely disagree with him; and on this particular topic, having devoted a life to the law, I am less hesitant in expressing disagreement than I otherwise would have been. He said:
"It is intolerable that this solemn and deeply significant procedure "—
that is, the death sentence—
"should be enacted again and again when in almost half the cases the consequence will not follow."
I would say it would be intolerable if the result were the other way round. I think that what makes the death sentence tolerable, in so far as it is tolerable, is that the Home Secretary is there and can mitigate the consequences of the sentence in any proper case. Therefore, I totally and fundamentally disagree with the premise on which the most reverend Primate founded his case and which constituted the problem before this Commission.
Having thus accepted the problem, the Commission go on to point out what the result of their recommendations will be. They are men for whom we all have a very high regard, and they candidly admit that there are grave objections to the procedure they indicate. That, indeed, is plain enough for anybody to see, plain enough if only for this reason: that successive Home Secretaries and their
152
staff have laid down not exactly working rules but at any rate certain principles which give them guidance. Thereby, great disparity and divergence between case and case is avoided. Obviously, as different juries are appointed to deal with different cases, there would inevitably be immense disparities and divergences between particular cases, and that would tend to bring the law into disrepute. That is the disadvantage of this scheme.
What are the advantages? The first is that it would make the law of murder flexible. But I do not want to make the law of murder flexible. I think it would be a most unfortunate thing to make the law flexible. The history of law has always been that in primitive society law tends to be and must be flexible. The magistrate sits as a Cadi under a palm tree and administers what he thinks is right and just; but, as system develops, the law tends to become less and less flexible. The Lord Chancellor will remember that equity, in the days when it was introduced, was a system under which the Lord Chancellor was able to mitigate the severities and strictness of the law in any case in which he thought it proper to do so. But the opinion of one Lord Chancellor as to what was proper would differ from the opinion of another Lord Chancellor, and so we find in Selden's Table Talk these words:
"Equity is a roguish thing, as variable as the Lord Chancellor's foot "—
meaning that one man's idea of what was reasonable differed from that of another man. So, in the process of years, equity became subject to fixed rules and principles and ceased to be flexible, as it had been in the old days. That is an inevitable tendency in civilised society. Therefore I think it would be a disastrous thing if the law of murder were to be made flexible. After the law has pronounced in a case, then by all means let us see that the quality of mercy is not constrained in any way and that the right of the Home Secretary to intervene should be based on no principles fixed and laid down by the Legislature. The second advantage, they say, is:
"It would also limit the need for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy."
I do not want to limit the need for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in any case whatever. I think it would be

153
a mistake 40 do so. Therefore, I find myself in this position. I find that they are taking these extreme steps to meet a problem which I do not regard as a real problem at all. They admit that the solution they propound has great disadvantages and they assert it has at least two corresponding advantages. Each of the two advantages which they set out has, I think, a disadvantage.
I pass briefly to the other question, the actual scheme they adopt of having, first of all, a trial at which the jury are asked to say whether a man is guilty or not guilty, and then a sort of second trial when the jury, having found the man guilty, have to decide whether or not they should assert that there are extenuating circumstances. The noble and leaned Viscount has pointed out that the Commission expressly said that they cannot define what the extenuating circumstances are. I should not like to be the judge summing up to the jury at that second trial. He would say to them, "Now, members of the jury, you are to consider whether there are extenuating circumstances, and what the extenuating circumstances are I have not the least idea. I cannot tell you at all. Now consider your verdict." That is about all he could say.
I think the Commission have not realised that it frequently happens that the defence which an accused advances at one stage is quite different from the case which he puts up to the Home Secretary after he is convicted. The simplest case is this. A murderer says, "I did not do it," and, of course, he rests on that: and if he is convicted, he goes to the Court of Criminal Appeal and tries to convince the Court of Criminal Appeal that there was not sufficient evidence that he did it, or that there was a misdirection or something of that sort. When that is all over, and the Court of Criminal Appeal dismiss the appeal and he stands convicted, the man may then go to the Home Secretary. His relatives may go to the Home Secretary and say, "Now, this is a very sad case. This man had an uncontrollable impulse. He had actually consulted a psychiatrist and asked the psychiatrist what he could do to get rid of this urge to kill young men or girls." It may be that the Home Secretary would then have to consider whether there was arty substance in that; and, if so, he could deal with this man as if he were in some way
154
affected in his mind. Consider that case—it is not a fanciful one. That happens often enough. What is the man to do? First of all, he has his first trial and is convicted. Then he has his second trial, when the jury have to consider whether there are extenuating circumstances. What is he to do? Is he to bring out then this story of mental weakness, of a tendency to commit crimes of this sort, and all that sort of thing?—because he may think, "That will rather harm my chances when I go to the Court of Criminal Appeal and say I never did it '"
I cannot think that this scheme has been the subject of thought, or at any rate has been the subject of advice by those who are really well qualified to speak on these matters. I regard the scheme of this second trial as one which is completely impracticable. Therefore, I sa—I am sorry to have detained your Lordships as long as I have—that in my view, whatever we may do on this most difficult problem, on which I continue to feel the greatest anxiety, the solution which has been propounded on this matter is not one that we can adopt.
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, it is very bold, perhaps it is very arrogant, for a mere layman like myself to put a somewhat different point of view from the point of view that has just been put by the noble and learned Viscount who moved this Resolution and by the noble and learned Earl who has followed, him. They have overwhelmed the proposal to give discretion to the jury with a mass of arguments that I am certain a great many noble Lords here to-day will regard as entirely unanswerable. I admit the objections to the proposal: I admit the fact that the change that is proposed might be described as a revolutionary change in our judicial procedure. I admit the fact that it raises practical difficulties in English law in dealing with the need for a unanimous verdict. I admit, further, that it might lead to disparity in the matter of verdicts, though I shall hope to show a little later on that the experience of other countries show; that there is no great amount of disparity of that kind. But, my Lords, admitting all these objections, admitting the strength of them, I when they have been made, the problem

155
still remains unsolved—is the law of murder too rigid? And, if so, how can it be altered?
I throw my mind back to-day to the bitter controversies that we had on the question of capital punishment in 1948. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has already alluded to those debates. My memory takes a somewhat different colour from his. I remember well the bitterness upon both sides, both in this House and in another place. On the one hand were the abolitionists, of whom I was one of the few in this House, and on the other were the anti-abolitionists. But I had the feeling throughout all those discussions that the body of opinion that really mattered was the centre opinion that took neither one extreme view nor the other.
EARL WINTERTON: May I interrupt the noble Viscount to say that I took part in the discussions in another place and there was very little bitterness there.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will restrict the word "bitterness" to this House. Perhaps I was a little sensitive because on my side of the House I was almost an Athanasius contra mundum. I should not like to embark upon a controversy with the noble Earl. I was saying that the body of opinion which most impressed me was the centre opinion which was very well represented by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. My view is that of all the speeches made in the debate it was that of the Archbishop of Canterbury which most affected general public opinion. The most reverend Primate was by no means satisfied with the existing position of the law. He stated categorically that:
"it would be a moral setback simply to revert to the status quo."
I go on to quote (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 156, col. 48):
"Christian belief is that human life is to be treated as a sacred thing…It must be asserted against many modern denials. …It should be assisted by a modification of our present law. It would be weakened if now we merely went back to the status quo."
Holding that view, he proposed that a differentiation should be made between murders, and that only murders which he described as "murders most foul"
156
should involve the death penalty. Largely due to the Archbishop's speech, the Royal Commission were subsequently appointed to consider the two questions—I quote their terms of reference:
"… whether a liability under the criminal law of Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified, and if so, to what extent and by what means."
As the noble and learned Viscount has already told the House, the Commission sat for four and a half years. They took volumes of evidence from experts in this country; they visited Belgium and the United States of America, and also made inquiries in South Africa. The Commission contained amongst its members three men whose opinions I should have said would carry the greatest possible weight upon penal questions of this kind. First of all, there was the Chairman, Sir Ernest Gowers, one of the ablest civil servants produced by Whitehall in our generation; secondly, there was Professor Radzinowicz, of Cambridge. the founder of the School of Criminal Studies in Cambridge and the author of a book upon British penal methods that I remember George Trevelyan described as the best book that was written in that particular year. Thirdly, there was my old Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. Sir Alexander Maxwell. a man with unrivalled experience in every branch of criminal methods. He has been a Prison Commissioner; he is now being used by the Government for every kind of inquiry into penal methods all over the world; and perhaps most important of all, he is a man upon whose serene judgment successive Secretaries of State have depended without the least hesitation. This Commission, with these great experts among their membership, after all these years of inquiry, have made this recommendation. I suggest to your Lordships that even though at first sight you may have been impressed—you may perhaps have been overwhelmed—by all the arguments made against it, you cannot lightly set aside the view of these men, given after these many years of detailed inquiry.
My Lords, I own that this recommendation surprised me when I first found it in the Report. I had imagined that the Royal Commission would have followed either the example of procedure in Scotland, where, so far as I can judge, the law

157
of murder is more humanely administered than it is here, or the Indian code, where for years past there has definitely been a legal differentiation of murder, and where, upon the whole, the differentiation has worked satisfactorily. If noble Lords wish to investigate the Indian experience, they will find in the evidence given to the Commission by Sir John Beaumont, one of the outstanding Indian judges, a description of how the India code has worked and how satisfactory, on the whole, have been its results.
If the Royal Commission had adopted that line they would have recommended what many of us had expected—a differentiation by legal definition between one kind of murder and another. I am certain that they did not lightly turn down that line of advance, but, after the most careful consideration, they came to the view that it was not practicable to find a legal definition that would satisfactorily distinguish between one murder and another. The result was that they have been driven back—I can imagine, though I do not know what was in their minds, that they were driven back reluctantly—upon the line of giving discretion either to the judges or to the jury. They turned clown the possibility of giving discretion to the judges for the reason—I accept that it was a good one—that none of the judges wished to undertake it.
They then considered the question of giving discretion to the jury. For that purpose they made the fullest possible inquiry into the experience of those countries where the jury already have a discretion of this kind. I own that I have been surprised to find how wide is the use that is being made in various parts of the world of the method of allowing a discretion to the jury. It is working very well in Belgium; it is working very well in South Africa. It is in use in practically every State of the United States, and upon the whole it is working well. In one or two of the well-governed States it is working excellently. Moreover, the experience has been that juries have not been in the habit of giving emotional verdicts, nor has one verdict differed substantially from another. On the whole, there has been much less disparity in the verdicts than we might have imagined from the two speeches to which we have listened this afternoon.
158
There is the proposal. It is not an ideal proposal. It has been made only after eliminating a number of alternatives. I myself, after a great deal of consideration, and although I admit objections to it, have come to the view that if we are to make the law relating to murder more flexible, this proposal should be tried. Here I disagree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who wishes to keep it rigid—I wish to make it more flexible; and, wishing to make it more flexible, I am inclined to give a proposal of this kind at least an experimental trial. I should like to see it tried over a period of, say, five years. If it were tried, I do not believe that many of the objections that have been made to-day against it would be found to have any solid foundation. I believe, further, that it we do not try it—and it is after all the principal recommendation of this Commission—we shall go back to that status quo against which the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury protested in our debates upon the Criminal Justice Act. That would, I believe, be profoundly unsatisfactory. I take the view that murder cases differ one from another more than any other criminal cases, and that any attempt to deal with them by a rigid method is bound to raise every kind of difficulty—and, indeed, even to create injustice.
I am fully aware, as a former Home Secretary, of the fact that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to make use of the prerogative of mercy for obviating anomalies and preventing injustices. I wish to say nothing against the way in which successive Home Secretaries have carried out this very responsible duty. They have carried it out as best they could. They have carried it out with the fullest possible departmental evidence at their disposal, and I should be the first to say that hitherto it has been a practical method that has worked moderately well. None the less, whilst it may have worked well in the past, I believe that in the new world, with its greater knowledge of human motives and mental abnormalities, and with the different methods of dealing with them, the Secretary of State's judgment should be supplemented by a power given either to the judges or to the j cries to take into account extenuating circumstances and to

159
impose sentences of imprisonment instead of death. In this way, my Lords, the prerogative of mercy will be preserved from future criticism and more strongly established than ever as a final safeguard where the irrevocable penalty of death is involved and so long as the penalty of death is continued.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just sat down, I rise to give your Lordships a layman's view. I shall not claim the attention of the House for long. I propose to deal only with one recommendation of the Royal Commission. Incidentally, if I may respectfuly say so, I found myself in complete agreement with what the noble and learned Viscount Lord Simon, had to say about the recommendations of the Commission in regard to the question of raising the age below which a capital sentence must not be pronounced and the possible change in the M'Naghten Rules. If this were the appropriate moment, I could say a good deal on that topic by reference, particularly, to the question of ungovernable impulse, which I have always thought means, and can only mean, in practice, an impulse which has not been governed. But as I have indicated, I wish to confine myself to that matter to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, devoted the greater part of his speech.
It is with the greatest reluctance that I withhold assent from the unanimous recommendation of a body which included two old and valued colleagues of mine, one of whom occupied the responsible position of Permanent Under-Secretary of State for a considerable number of years, as I did; but after mature reflection I do most emphatically dissent from the recommendation of the Commission on this particular issue. It is not difficult to make the matter we are discussing appear very complex. The bent of my mind is to regard it as, in essentials, quite simple. It seems to me incontrovertible that, in this country at any rate, the proper function of a jury is to determine issues of fact according to the evidence before them. Under the proposal of the Royal Commission a jury would have to deal with an issue essentially involving the exercise of judgment, and whilst an attempt might no
160
doubt be made to give the task of the jury under the proposed plan a semblance of fact-finding, by laying down a variety of questions to which the jury must address themselves, essentially the matter woul remain one of judgment and discretion. If the law with regard to murder were to be altered in substance in the manner proposed, I should take the view that the discretion would have to be exercised not by a jury but by a judge or judges. My noble friend Lord Templewood was quite right, if I may say so, in calling the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that under the Indian penal code judges have had such a function, and in the light of my own experience I would respectfully agree that that system worked tolerably well. Conditions in India, however, were, and I believe still are, very different from those obtaining here.
There is another consideration to which I attach the greatest importance. I have learned from the Report of the Royal Commission that two witnesses before the Commission, men of the highest eminence, Sir Travers Humphreys and Lord Justice Denning, expressed the view that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy involves some interference with the due course of the law and, indeed, some measure of challenge to judicial authority. I absolutely dissent from that view. But if, in a capital case, the function of the court, whether judge or jury, were altered in the manner suggested, that criticism would begin to have real validity, because unquestionably the Home Secretary and his advisers would seem to be going over the same ground, which they do not at present, as that covered by the judicial authority. To my mind that in itself is a conclusive argument against what is proposed. I am sorry to find myself so sharply at issue with my noble friend Lord Templewood. He and I have worked together. If I may say so, we have had in some degree the same sort of experience, but the lesson that I draw from my experience is sharply at variance with that drawn by him.
4.26 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing the words of commendation which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, used about the work of the Royal Commission. Nobody who has studied their Report can fail to appreciate the really

161
searching inquiry which they made, not only into the problem that confronts penologists and criminal lawyers in this country but also into the whole problem of the administration of the law of murder throughout the civilised world. I am sure that for many a long year students of this difficult problem will stand considerably in their debt. As noble Lords have pointed out, this is not a debate on whether the death sentence is a proper sentence, a good sentence, which ought to be retained on the Statute Book; it is a debate which has been limited by the noble and learned Viscount to a much narrower field. I should not like to stray from the path which the noble Viscount has marked out, but at the same time he took the opportunity of looking over the hedge at the side of the road and I cannot forbear from looking over the hedge also, although perhaps not the same one.
Perhaps the most valuable of all the work that has been done by the Royal Commission is the searching inquiry which they have made into the effect of capital punishment as a deterrent. I have studied their Appendix on this matter, which is an astonishingly convincing document, and remain more than ever satisfied that the sooner we remove the death sentence from our penal system the better. I cannot help feeling that the men and women who collected that material together and set it out, whatever their views when they began upon their investigation, must have come to feel, as they studied the material which they collected, that the argument against the death penalty was overwhelming. This is indeed the first effective analysis of the use of capital punishment all over the world from the point, of view of its effectiveness as a deterrent. It may be a matter of curiosity, but I should like to know the final opinion of those able men and women, and I believe that all those interested in this matter would also like to know that. No group of outstanding citizens have ever been brought so closely in touch with this important and difficult problem over so long a period, and it seems to me a great pity that at the end of their labours we are not able to know the final view to which they came. I do not know, but I should be prepared to hazard a long bet that the great majority, if not all of them, must finally have come clearly to the conclusion that capital
162
punishment ought to be abolished. I should like to ask the Government to request the Commission to disclose what their final view was on that difficult point.
To turn now to the Motion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, my first reaction to this proposal was rather against it. It was only when I came to consider it more carefully that I reached the same conclusion as that to which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has come—namely, that it is a proposal along the lines of the terms of reference given to the Commission: to see whether they could find some method of modifying or limiting the death sentence as we now have it, which, it would be well worth giving a trial. It seems to me that they have, in fact, discovered a method, which is not, as the noble and learned Earl who leads me suggested, an attempt to abolish capital punishment by a side wind, but a really genuine attempt to introduce some modification or limitation of the death sentence as we know it to-day.
I was rather disappointed with the speech of the noble, and learned Viscount. Lord Simon, if he will forgive my saying so, because it seemed to me that he did not put the case which is put by the Royal Commission, even for the purpose of trying to knock it down. I was sorry to see him appearing in the rô le in which he appeared on an earlier occasion, as the advocate of death, in a sense. Again he repeated the point about Sir Alexander Paterson. I do not think it is true for a moment that the inaccurate remark that was made in another place led to the vote which was given in that Assembly. It is rather a reflection on that House to suggest that a Legislative Assembly of this country could change their opinion just because they were informed that a man, however eminent, had decided to change his views, and that they all followed like a lot of sheep. Actually, there is a good deal of strong evidence to suggest that Sir Alexander Paterson had changed his mind about this matter. It is true that the Member concerned in another place made a mistake in saying that Sir Alexander had joined the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. He had not done that. But the evidence of the present Secretary, Mr. Frank Dawtry, of the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society, a man of the highest integrity—and this is on record—is that in a conversation

163
with Sir Alexander Paterson not long before he died, having discussed the new methods of imprisonment, not only as carried out in this country but also in Belgium and in other foreign countries, Sir Alexander did say, "That is the answer," and indicated that, with these new methods, and the fact that the sentence need not be a complete life sentence, his former objections had considerably modified.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, has he not ascertained whether it was true that the late Sir Alexander Paterson had joined the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, and was a subscriber? It is quite easy to ask the Society, or the Secretary.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble and learned Viscount did not hear what I said. I said that that part of the statement was not true. I was myself President of that Society, and I know that Sir Alexander Paterson was not a member of it.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: May I ask whether the noble Lord is not aware of the express repudiation by Lady Paterson, the widow of Sir Alexander Paterson, of the change of view which has been attributed to him?
LORD CHORLEY: I have seen a statement made by Mr. Frank Dawtry of the conversation he had with Sir Alexander Paterson shortly before he died, and I myself have talked to him about it. There can be no question of this, because Mr. Frank Dawtry, as the noble and learned Viscount must know, is a man of complete integrity and could not possibly have invented a story of that kind. However, this matter must be decided on its merits, and I cannot believe for a moment that the House of Commons did not come to their decision on this particular matter on a review of the arguments and the facts, and without attaching this undue weight to the opinion of Sir Alexander Paterson, important as that no doubt was.
I should like to join issue with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, on another matter. He said the action of the late Government, when the Criminal Justice Bill was returned to another Place, in not restoring the clause abolishing the death penalty after it had been
164
deleted in your Lordships' House, showed that they accepted the view that responsible opinion in this country was against it. That does not follow at all. The clause was not the Government's clause; it was a Back-Bencher's clause. The fact that the Government did not put back into the Bill a clause which was not their own is not evidence that they accepted the view that responsible opinion in the country was against it. The noble and learned Viscount was not in his best form this afternoon, I am afraid. At one stage in his speech he said that death should be the punishment for felonious killing. That must be a case of Homer nodding slightly, because a most important type of felonious killing which is before the courts every day is the felony of manslaughter, for which death has not been the penalty since the Middle Ages. Again, the noble and learned Viscount made the point that there was no case in our law where a jury decides how a man is to be punished. Surely, this case we are discussing this afternoon is a case where the jury do decide how a man is to be punished: by convicting the man accused of murder of the crime, they automatically sentence him to death. The proposal put by the Royal Commission is simply to enlarge that system and to allow them to decide whether he should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment.
If I may say so, I thought the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount about the horrible character of the life sentence were all of a part with his speech, which, in my view, was a speech of advocacy for the status quo, because he mast be well aware that these life sentences, which are automatically passed in cases where the Home Secretary respites the convicted murderer, are never, in practice, served as life sentences. The noble and learned Viscount must have seen in the Report of the Royal Commission that the full period which these respited murderers serve is not more, on an average, than about ten years: that they are, in fact, amongst the best prisoners in the prisons; that the open prisons hold the majority of them; and that when finally they are discharged, their records afterwards are extraordinarily good. I believe that there is only one case in which one of them has committed a second murder; very few of them commit crimes involving violence; and few of them commit further

165
crimes at all. Most of them become respectable and decent citizens. That is not peculiar to this country, but is the experience of criminologists all over the world.
Then the noble and learned Viscount objected to the fact that the Commission proposed that the sort of circumstances which are to be regarded as extenuating circumstances should not be set out in detail in the Act which would have to be passed in order to introduce the reform in the law which they recommend. Is that not a reasonable proposition? By setting out extenuating circumstances, we limit the circumstances to those which are set out in the Statute, and it is impossible for the draftsman to foresee every sort of extenuating circumstance which may possibly arise. The judges themselves, in advising juries in cases of this kind, would undoubtedly in a short time build up a jurisprudence which would be flexible and would have all value of judge-made law, as opposed to rigid definitions in Statutes. In lie Report of the Royal Commission, the obvious sorts of extenuating circumstances are set out, and I am quite sure that they could be taken by the judges and moulded into a flexible jurisprudence.
As the noble and learned Viscount said, the great argument of the Commission is that our law of murder, as it stands at present, is altogether too rigid. He thought it was right that it should be rigid and wished that it should not be changed. I was surprised to find that the noble and learned Earl agreed with him in that, because quite a large section of the law of murder—and I think every lawyer, including the Lord Chief Justice, who gave evidence before the Royal Commission, agreed that it ought to be changed—is the law of constructive murder. There it is agreed between lawyers and criminologists that the law of murder is in fact in need of change. The real argument of the Royal Commission is not in relation to the law of murder as it stands, the Common Law definition, out in relation to the sentence which automatically follows on the conviction of the person accused of murder; the automatic rigid sentence of death, which I should have thought was quite another point.
I should like your Lordships to look for a moment at what the Royal Com-
166
mission say about this. At the end of paragraph 536 they say:
"Nevertheless they "—
that is, their proposals—
"appear to offer the only hope of escaping the difficulties which have proved fatal to the proposals we have, already examined; for, if they were practicable, they would enable the courts to limit the scope of capital punishment not by applying a rigid and necessarily inadequate definition, but by an unfettered appreciation of the particular circumstances of each individual case."
If I may say so, that is entirely in accord with the whole recent development of criminology, in this country and in every other civilised country. The whole tendency for the last hundred years has been to treat the criminal as an individual; to look at the circumstances of each particular case, and to adapt the sentence in relation to that criminal to make die punishment fit the criminal, and not the punishment fit the crime. If I may say so, the attitude of the Royal Commission is entirely in accordance with that important trend, and the advice which the noble and learned Viscount gave to your Lordships this afternoon is asking us to return to the situation as it existed one hundred years ago. Again at paragraph 568 the Royal Commission make the point quite shortly:
"The signal advantage of jury discretion is that it would solve our main problem. It would make the law of murder flexible. It would remove the outstanding defect of the existing law, that there is only one sentence for crimes which involve widely differing degrees of guilt, and would enable the courts to examine each case individually on its merits and to make the punishment more nearly fit the crime."
There again, I suggest that the advice of the Commission is entirely in accordance with the whole trend of modern criminological science.
Again they emphasise the point which was made by the most reverend Primate. They emphasise the fact—I am sure that he is right, in spite of the weighty opinion which has been put up on the other side—that it is wrong for the judge conducting a criminal trial to put on the black cap and condemn to death some wretched person whose sentence every informed lawyer in the court, and every informed person outside the court, knows perfectly well will be respited by the Home Secretary at the end of a short time. Yet the wretched man who is convicted in that way cannot be sure about that, and must

167
suffer torments during the whole of that intervening period. That has been described by some people as a solemn farce. I do not think the word "farce" ought to be used in such a connection. It seems to me to be a tragedy that that sort of thing can still happen in our courts of law in this Year of Grace.
Another important point which the noble and learned Viscount did not bring to your Lordships' attention, but to which the Royal Commission obviously attach a great deal of importance, is the fact that this entrusting of the position as to death or life imprisonment to the jury would bring back into our judicial system the problem of sentencing. At the present time, in effect, it is entrusted to an officer of the Executive Department of the State, because by the development of the use of the prerogative of mercy over the last 200 years or so we have really developed a system of having two trials in cases of murder. The first trial takes place in the ordinary courts of the land, and the second trial takes place afterwards, secretly, in the Home Office, where a decision is taken as to whether or not the person who has been convicted and sentenced to death shall, in fact, be executed. That is really a second trial. It is a trial which offends against many of the basic concepts of our English law. I am not saying that it is not carried out with the greatest care I am sure that it is, and that the Home Secretaries concerned, and their officials, give the greatest and most painstaking thought to what they are doing. But that does not mean that it is not a trial which is against the whole spirit of the Common Law of England. It is a trial carried out by an executive officer, and not by an officer who is part of the judicial system of the land.
This is made very clear by the Royal Commission, in paragraph 592. It is carried out behind shut doors in secret, whereas it is the whole essence of our law that justice should be administered coram publico—that it should not only be done but should be seen to be done, a phrase which has been used much of recent years and which does express a most essential and vital verity. The Secretary of State does not himself see the prisoner. He has to take everything on trust. I suggest that it would be better
168
if this business could be done in open court, as part of the administration of justice, according to the ordinary administration of justice in the courts of law. Finally, it is carried through by an executive officer of State who is, in a sense, interested; he is not a completely unbiased officer of State, because he is the very officer who is responsible above all other Ministers for the preservation of order in the community, and who is entrusted with the supervision of the police force which, after all, is the prosecuting element in the case. In a sense, therefore, the Home Secretary is being a judge in his own case. I have no doubt that in the great mass of these cases the Home Secretary succeeds in reaching a completely unbiased decision in these matters, but every now and then there is a case in which the police themselves are particularly closely involved—as in a recent case which will be within your Lordships' knowledge. I suggest that in that case it is very difficult, if not impossible, in practice for the Home Secretary to come to the same sort of completely unbiased decision as he would reach if he were not interested in the result. Because obviously every Home Secretary must wish to defend his own police officers.
LORD WALERAN: May I ask the noble Lord to which case he is referring?
LORD CHORLEY: I was talking about the youth Bentley, a lad of 18 or 19 years old who killed a policeman—or rather who, although he did not actually commit the murder himself, shouted to his confederate, "Let him have it." But Bentley was found guilty of the murder and Craig, who was under age and therefore could not be sentenced to death, was imprisoned.
LORD WALERAN: I am happy that I know the name, because in all my twenty-seven years in this House I have had no reason to think that a noble Lord would get on his feet and say what he thought, at the same time hiding the name.
LORD CHORLEY: I was not trying to conceal the name in the Bentley case. It was merely for the reason that I thought I should seem to be teaching noble Lords what was already in their minds. The point of my argument is that a man should have the right to have his

169
sentence determined by the machinery of the judicial system, and should not receive this respite which everybody knows he is going to get, merely as a matter of grace. That point is well expressed by the Royal Commission in paragraph 568 of their Report, where they deal with the matter being one of right, rather than one of grace.
The last point that I should like to emphasise—and it was one which was completely ignored by the noble and learned Viscount—is one of very great importance. It has been mentioned particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. I refer to foreign experience in respect of this matter. One would have thought, when listening to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that there was no foreign experience to go on; whereas in practically all the States of the United States of America they have for many years had this system of leaving the death sentence or the life sentence at the discretion of the jury. And these States are almost all States which are just as much proud inheritors of the Common Law system of law as we are. As recently as 1951, Massachusetts, which had not previously adopted this system, did introduce it—for the very reason that it was found that juries were too easily acquitting men who were accused of murder because they knew well that a result of a verdict of "Guilty" would mean the death of the accused man. It was therefore suggested that they should leave it to the jury themselves to say whether a particular murder was of such a heinous character as to deserve the death sentence.
I suggest that one of the results of the proposal of the Royal Commission would be that juries here also would give a more honest verdict. I should say that in these cases of murder English juries do, on the whole, give proper verdicts; but I do not think anybody would deny that there are cases here and there where a jury give the prisoner such a very wide benefit of the doubt as to make the verdict approximate, at any rate, to the sort of perverse verdict to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, referred in his speech. Now, if the incentive to give a verdict of that kind were removed, surely we should get more honest verdicts. A substantial proportion of cases in which it is pretty clear that the
170
prisoner is, in fact, guilty but where the jury find him "Not guilty" would have verdicts of "Guilty" returned; and so we should get a more honest and more wholesome administration of the criminal law.
To return to the question of foreign experience, it is most interesting and significant to see the evidence put before the Royal Commission on this point. Particularly valuable was the evidence which was forthcoming from South Africa, and it was given by a very distinguished ex-judge of South Africa, Dr. C. W. H. Langstone, Q. C, who was not only for a number of years a judge in that country but is the author of a leading textbook. His evidence (I am referring now to paragraph 483 of the Report) makes it clear that the doctrine of extenuating circumstances "has proved very successful" in South Africa. Figures are given which show that juries find extenuating circumstances in some 76 per cent. of the cases in which they find a verdict of "Guilty." And the interesting thing is that, even after that, the South African opposite number of the Home Secretary may then. consider the case, and in fact does consider the case, and respites a further quite substantial number of these men—something like 23 per cent. of those convicted. In other words, the further sorts of evidence about the man's heredity, his early circumstances and family life, and matters of that kind, which cannot, from the nature of these trials, be brought in at the actual trial of the case, are then given further careful consideration. Then, if the opposite number of the Home Secretary in South Africa finds it a proper case for clemency to be granted there is still this further opportunity—in the words which the noble and learned Viscount quoted—for mercy to "creep in by some chink." I suggest that we in this country should not draw back but should also be courageous and follow this fine example set so recently by our fellow-citizens of the Commonwealth in South Africa, and by those people in America who share with us the great traditions of the Common Law and who have used this system with success for many years.
4.58 p.m.
LORD OAKSEY: My Lords, I entirely agree with the speeches made by the noble and learned Viscount who moved this Motion, the noble and learned Earl

171
the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley; and I think I can compress what I have to say into very few moments. What is the problem? What is the object of this scheme? What is the difficulty? As I understand it, it is simply this: that in a certain class of cases, the rarest possible class of cases, it is suggested that it is improper or shocking that a sentence of death should be passed; and I can understand that argument being put forward with reference to what are called "mercy killings." But how many mercy killings, so called, are there? I have never come across one in the course of my experience and the Royal Commission do not refer in any way, so far as I can see, to any number of "mercy killings." I entirely agree with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that it is highly desirable that the taking of another person's life should be treated with the utmost solemnity and that, therefore, a sentence of death should be passed. It is inevitable that a person who has committed such an offence should have to go through a trial; he or she must be tried, in any event. The suggestion of this scheme is that they should have a second trial, which would be a further ordeal in which they would have to wait to learn whether the jury would find any extenuating circumstances. Therefore, in my opinion, the object of the scheme is of an absolutely negligible quality.
My next objection to the scheme—and this is to the scheme itself—is that, while I will not say that it is not designed to arrive at the truth, it seems to me that it will not, in fact, arrive at the truth. The Royal Commission have realised that it would be improper and inappropriate to place upon the prosecution the duty of demanding the death penalty, so they propose that the defence should put forward what are alleged to be extenuating circumstances, and that that evidence should not in any way be tested by cross-examination. That is absolutely opposed to the whole system of British elucidation of the truth in the course of the administration of justice. Everyone who is practised in the law will, I think, agree with me that to take the evidence which is put forward by the witnesses for one side and not to test it by cross-examination will not lead you to the truth.
172
Therefore, while, as I say, it may not be fair to say that this scheme is not designed to arrive at the truth, its actual provisions will not, in fact, do so. Verdicts of juries will be perverted by the way in which the evidence has been presented to them, and in nearly every case, in all probability, they will find that there are extenuating circumstances.
Other speakers have already insisted upon the fact that particular juries will have no standard by which to decide whether there are such extenuating circumstances as ought to prevent the death sentence from being pronounced. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that if such a scheme had to be put into effect, if there had to be such a trial, it should be left to the judges. The judges would have such a standard and I feel absolutely certain that, if it were put upon them, they would carry out their duty properly. But there is one other agument which seems to me to be worth mentioning, and it is this. The burden which, at the present time, a jury has, of deciding whether or not a man is guilty, is enough for any one body of men or women to have to sustain in the course of one trial. Anybody who has presided over a murder trial not only feels the strain himself but knows and can sense the strain which juries have to undergo in deciding that issue. The further duty of deciding whether or not the prisoner should be put to death seems to me to be altogether too much of a burden to place upon them. It is one which will almost inevitably end in their giving judgments on these extenuating circumstances which are not in accordance with the truth.
5.7 p.m.
LORD ASQUITH OF BISHOPSTONE: My Lords, I rise to support this Motion and can give my reasons very shortly indeed. I have read most of the Report and, of course, all the section of it which is material to this Motion. I know not at the end of that experience whether more to admire its form or to deplore a great deal of its substance. In particular, this proposal seems to be very ill judged. The wisdom of centuries has committed to juries the task, and only the task, of ascertaining innocence or guilt. The determination of the punishment has always been lodged in other hands. Notoriously in criminal cases, the burden

173
which rests upon a jury under this head, the finding of a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not guilty," is about as painful a burden as can rest on anyone's shoulders. To foist upon a jury, who have already discharged that task and found a verdict of "Guilty," the further task, not less painful and not less onerous, and which they have no qualifications to discharge, of deciding the issue of reprieve or no reprieve, seems to me as little fair to the jury as it is to the public.
Have your Lordships considered how little assistance a jury enjoys in this difficult task, or will enjoy if this proposal goes through? They have to judge whether there exist extenuating circumstances. There is no definition in the Report of "extenuating circumstances" and the authors of the Report quite frankly, and, I think, rightly, say that no definition is possible. If a jury seek guidance on this point, all that a judge can tell them is that extenuating circumstances are anything which they consider such. Meanwhile, for the first time, I think, in our history, it is proposed that an issue should be left to the jury, rot of fact but of pure opinion, of pure opinion in a field in which they are given no criterion, no yardstick, no standard to help them. Is it not inevitable that in those circumstances two consequences are likely to follow, both evil? First of all, there will be a jumble of inconsistent decisions given by different juries on facts which are materially indistinguishable. After all, justice should be even-handed: it should not consist in a capricious patchwork. The second, almost inevitable, consequence will be a great increase in what one may call sentimental clemency. Consider the position of a jury who have wrestled for days with the issue of "Guilty" or "Not guilty," and have felt bound to convict. They see before them a harassed, hunted man. In human nature the instinct to rescue is very strong: we tend to side with the hunted and to forget the victim. Meanwhile, they know, or will know, that they have only to lift a finger in order to save this person from the gallows. We can expect only one result from that.
Much has been said in criticism of the present system. I am by no means uncritical of it, but it does seem to me, with all its shortcomings, vastly prefer-
174
able to the suggested alternative. The present system involves these features: that in a case of murder neither the jury nor the judge have airy discretion as to punishment. The jury has nothing to do with punishment, and the judge has no option but to pronounce sentence of death. But everybody knows that the matter does not end there. The real discretion is lodged with the Home Secretary when advising the Sovereign as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and in so advising; he has a staff of trained experts behind him—men who have not been harrowed or haunted by the sight of the convicted man a moment after his conviction, men who are not tempted to be oblivious of the fact that there was a victim involved. The Home Secretary can draw upon the vast accumulated experience of his Department. I do not for a moment claim that it is a perfect system; on the contrary, I think on occasions bad mistakes have been made. But as I say, with all its shortcomings, it appears to be a vast improvement on what it is suggested should replace it.
One cannot resist the suspicion that the real aim of these proposals is to undermine the death penalty altogether. The Commission are disabled from recommending its abolition as such, and, reading between the lines, one appears to discern an attempt to reduce it to a shadow, to whittle it down to nothing by indirect means. There is a good legal maxim, that you ought not to be allowed to do indirectly what you cannot do directly. I cannot believe that this recommendation, in particular, would have assumed the form it has if there had been among the ranks of the Commission a single person who had ever tried a capital, case. For these reasons, and for the reasons which other speakers have given, I commend this Resolution to the House.
5.14 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, the principles underlying this proposal of the Commission have, I think, already been criticised enough. I need hardly say that I agree with those criticisms. May I put forward a few practical objections to the scheme? In the first place, I think one point has been overlooked. The Commission have stated that they think that the law of murder ought to be more flexible. There may be a good many

175
reasons for that. For myself, I believe it is desirable that all law should be certain. But juries are by no means inflexible, and in every murder case that comes before the courts a jury can always return a verdict of manslaughter if they wish to do so—and they not infrequently do, merely because they find that there are some mitigating circumstances. However much a judge may direct a jury—he may lead them but he cannot drive them—that there is no evidence which would justify a verdict of manslaughter, on occasions they do find a verdict of manslaughter, even against the direction of the judge, and that is because they feel great sympathy with the accused person.
A case was reported in the newspapers, either this morning or yesterday morning, of a son who killed his father because the father was attacking the mother. It could not be pretended that the attack which the father was making upon the mother was really endangering the mother's life, and certainly the father was not using a knife. But the son took a knife and plunged it into his father's back and killed him. I think the judge would have charged the jury that that was murder, but the jury found manslaughter. As Lord Mansfield said many years ago, a jury can exist for the purposes of mitigating the rigours of the Common Law. But, my Lords, it is extraordinary, and very dangerous, to leave this question of extenuating circumstances in terms to a jury. At the present moment there is a man who I think must be still serving a life sentence passed upon him some years ago by Mr. Justice Atkinson at the West Riding Assizes. That man, years before, had killed a woman on Newcastle Moor. It was the clearest case of murder, but apparently because she was a prostitute (this was the only reason the judge could find) the jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter. The accused person was given a substantial sentence; he served his sentence and, having earned his remission, he came out again. After a very short time, at or near Leeds, he did exactly the same thing. As Mr. Justice Atkinson told me afterwards, the only possible reason for the jury again finding manslaughter was that the woman was a prostitute. Is that any extenuating circumstance? That is the sort of thing that
176
a jury will do—and the temptation to do so would, of course, be enormously extended if this proposal were to be adopted.
I do not believe that there would be a great extension of it, because a jury have first of all to be unanimous as to whether the verdict is one of murder or manslaughter. If they are unanimous that it is manslaughter, well, there is an end of it; they have used their powers and the court must accept their verdict. Then comes the case in which they are unanimous that the proper verdict is murder. But I doubt whether one in twelve juries would ever agree on the question of what the sentence should be. I am bound to say that at the moment there is a regrettable increase in the number of disagreements among juries at criminal trials—I do not mean in the murder trials, although about two months ago, at the Old Bailey, there was a disagreement in a case which was called the Clapham Common case. I have been at the Old Bailey to-day. The learned Recorder told me that last Session there were no fewer than seven disagreements on the question of guilt or innocence. How many more do you think there would be in regard to the question of death or imprisonment for life?
The curious proposal that is made in this Report is that if the jury disagree, then the sentence of death is passed automatically. I simply cannot understand that. If a jury disagree, they give no verdict. If the question of death or imprisonment is to depend upon the verdict of a jury, how illogical and wrong it would be to say that if the jury cannot come to a decision the more serious penalty is to follow. With regard to the other proposals suggested in the Commission's Report, so far as I understand it, directly there has been a verdict of "Guilty" the police officer, who now always gives evidence in the ordinary case in regard to the prisoner's record (not, of course, in a murder case, where there is only one sentence that can be pronounced) has to come and give his evidence; the prison doctor has to come and give evidence, and then the judge has to direct the jury. I am not quite sure what is the purpose of his addressing the jury at this stage, but that is what the Commission say he has to do. Then the prisoner's counsel can call whom he

177
likes, and the prosecuting counsel is not entitled to cross-examine. The prosecuting counsel is not to be entitled to make any speech, but the prisoner's counsel is to be allowed to make a speech. Then the judge, apparently, has to make another speech in the form of a summing up. I am bound to say—and I say it in all sincerity—that rather than take part in such a performance as that I would resign the office I hold, for I think it would be destructive of everything in the British law. For these reasons, I commend the Motion to this House.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, after the speech of the last noble and learned Lord I hardly dare to rise to my feet in this Assembly but let me say right away that I have only one point to make. The mover of the Motion, in his opening speech, drew attention to one aspect of this Report—that of the place of the jury in a murder trial. Now there is one issue upon which I support the most reverend Primate the Lard Archbishop of Canterbury, and that is on the question of maintaining the status quo. But I do not think the status quo can rightly be maintained in the sphere of insanity in murder trials. I think it cannot be denied that in these matters the cases which most trouble the mind of the community at the present time are the borderline cases, cases which involve questions of insanity, and psychopathic questions relating to the accused person. There is nothing relating to the criminal law which more troubles the public mind than such cases as these. I think, therefore, that although one of the most important issues is that relating to the status quo, and this may not he the right place for developing the issue upon which I have just touched, it is right for me to raise this point in discussing the question of whether a jury should adjudicate on the matter of the penalty to be inflicted.
The key issue which troubles cur consciences is these borderline cases of insanity. Which of twelve ordinary people has any experience of that kind of thing in his ordinary life? How many people know anything of the basic facts relating to psychopathy and insanity, and all that belongs to this sphere of
178
human motives? To most people it is entirely a closed door. If, therefore, they are now to be asked in these cases to make decisions in an area of judgment in which they have no experience of any kind, a still greater burden will be cast upon them than any they have hitherto had to bear. It is not a question of law, nor is it a question of fact or of evidence. There is no such thing as fact in these cases. The question for the jury is one of interpreting the facts before them, and that interpretation requires an understanding and. knowledge which the average jury cannot claim to have. To sum up, there is, I know, much public distress concerning these murder trials in which the question of insanity is raised, and I suggest that the jury are the last body competent to form a decision on such a matter. Therefore any decisions which would throw on a jury mare responsibility, which they are most incompetent to discharge, would be a disaster.
One other matter relevant to this debate with which I should like to deal is this. In cases of possible insanity, as we know, the Home Secretary may have to discharge a very heavy responsibility. Everyone must have an intense feeling of sympathy for the Home Secretary when a question of that kind is referred to him—and there are many such cases. In arriving at his decision, so far as I can make out, he consults particular individuals and gets from them the benefit of their judgment. I regard it as unfair to throw such a responsibility on the Home Secretary. I think he ought to have a corporate body legally established to which these questions can be referred—a body whom the Home Secretary would consult officially and not informally. That is all I wish to say. This is a matter which touches the conscience of so many of us in relation to these murder trials.
LORD CHORLEY: Surely the Home Secretary has to consult two doctors under an Act, I think, of 1884. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice knows that better than I do.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: I wonder in what form the decision is taken. Does the Home Secretary act after personal consultation or is it merely a matter of constitutional legal form?
5.27 p.m.
LORD TUCKER: My Lords, I so thoroughly agree with everything that has been said in support of this Motion that there is little I desire to add. I am entirely at a loss to understand what is wrong with the present system that calls for any alteration in the law. It seems to me it is only right and proper for every man who commits murder, that according to the law as it stands at present, he should be in peril of having sentence of death passed upon him. And I am completely unable to understand that there is any substance in the claim that a man who has committed a murder should be given a right to have some lesser sentence passed upon him. It is no doubt right and proper, in many cases, that the prerogative of mercy should be brought into play by the Home Secretary. I think there is ample scope there for the flexibility which so many people desire; and, speaking for myself, I think our present system has worked admirably over the course of years.
It is a grievous task that is put upon the Home Secretary. He has never yet shrunk from facing, that task, and in the exercise of that duty he can keep abreast of public feeling. The public views about these matters change as years go on, but he is the best instrument for giving effect to the flexibility which is so necessary with regard to the carrying out of the sentence of death. The idea of a judge or a jury having to go through the terrible ordeal of a second trial, once they have dealt with the first trial for murder, is one which shocks me. It seems to me that if it be the fact—which I do not believe—that the judges have refused to accept the responsibility of deciding this matter if it should be thought right that the duty should be placed upon them, it would be quite wrong that a task of that kind should be put on twelve jurymen summoned to do their duty as citizens. I do not believe that the judges would shrink from shouldering this responsibility, if it were considered necessary to put it upon them, and I believe that, if any change is needed, they would be the proper people to deal with this matter.
Reference has been made to the experience of other countries. One of the countries to which the Royal Commission have directed their attention primarily has been Belgium, where, as
180
they point out in the Report, the death sentence, though nominally still existing, has not been given effect to for many years, so that the experience in that country would not appear to give much assistance. One of the other countries is South Africa. There the system of law is based on Roman-Dutch law. It is true that the third country is America. But, with all respect to the different systems of other countries, and after the experience I have had of various branches of the law, I would say without hesitation that, so far as the criminal law and its administration are concerned, we need not look beyond these shores in that matter.
5.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords. I asked that my name should be included in the list of speakers just before that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is to reply, in the expectation, and indeed the hope, that all the points which I should have otherwise brought forward would have been dealt with by previous speakers. That has, in fact, proved to be the case, so that I am exempt from the obligation of making a lengthier speech than I should have to make if the circumstances were otherwise. Indeed, I find myself not only anticipated by what has been said by many noble Lords, but in full agreement with the great weight of judgment that has been expressed in your Lordships' House to-day. From the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who moved the Motion, through the whole list of speeches, from ex-Home Secretaries and Law Lords (with the exception of that of the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood), there is a great weight of opinion in opposition to this proposal made by the Royal Commission.
The debate has properly been restricted in its scope. The noble and learned Viscount put down a limited Resolution. The Report of the Commission does not deal with the broad question of the abolition of capital punishment, for it was rightly determined, when drawing up the Commission's terms of the reference, that that was not a matter which could be submitted to the judgment of any body of that character. It is far too grave and general a question of policy to be submitted to an inquiry of that kind. Their function is to provide the materials

181
on which a judgment can be based, but the judgment itself is not for them, in the form of a recommendation: it is one for Parliament, for the electorate and for the public opinion of the whole nation.
I confess that I shared the surprise that has been felt by others when I read this proposal with regard to delegating to the jury the decision on this question of 1.fe and death. The surprise is the greater when I observe in the Commissioners' Report this statement:
"We"—
that is, the Commission—
"must recognise, however, that such a system would also be open to a number of grave objections, and the witnesses whom we asked for their views on the suggestion that some such discretion should be conferred on the jury almost all considered that it would be most undesirable."
So that the Commission have arrived at their decision in face of the great body of evidence placed before them, while in addition, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned, he, for one, and I for another, when we appeared before the Commission, were not asked to express any opinion of that kind. Therefore, this recommendation comes to us as all the greater surprise.
It raises the whole question of the working of the British jury system. As the Commission declare, it makes a radical change in that system, which is one of the great triumphs of the British Constitution and its judicial structure. Viewed dispassionately, the jury is one of the most remarkable institutions in the world. No modern jurist, or political philosopher, asked to draw up the Constitution of a new State, would dream of inventing a method by which twelve people would be drawn together haphazard, by lot, and charged with the important duty of administering the criminal law. But there it is. Indeed, it long anticipated the law. It is one of the most ancient institutions of mankind, and it works very well. The Commission do not hesitate to quote the almost unanimous opinion of judges in paying tribute to the juries for their fairness and wisdom. And this is an example of the wisdom that does reside in common sense. Jury service is readily rendered by the people at large. Most men, and probably most women, feel somewhat gratifed in being chosen, unless the case
182
they have to deal with is too onerous. They feel rather proud of taking part in the working of the national system, and that they, ordinary citizens, are called upon to take an important place in a law court, go through all the solemnities of its procedure and at the end give the deciding voice in settling the whole matter. Not the learned lawyers, not the judge, but John Smith and William Robinson settle a case, one way or another. And this service is readily given.
But mark how limited their functions are in this matter of sentence. See how careful our law is not to place upon any one individual this terrible burden of saying, "This man shall die." It is not the prosecution, as in some countries, who have to say whether they demand the death sentence or not. That is quite foreign to British law. It is not the jury, because they are not asked to express any opinion on that matter. All they have to do is to find what are the facts, whether a man is guilty or nor guilty. That is their function, and having done that, their consciences are discharged. It is not the judge, because in this case, and in this case only, the law decides that the judge shall not be asked to decide what the sentence shall be. Once the verdict has been given, the sentence follows as a matter of course. It is not even the Home Secretary, although in a most solemn moment, after having examined every aspect, of the matter, he does search his conscience to decide whether or not there shall be an interference with the law. The positive action is taken by the law. The Home Secretary does not decide de novo. He does not start from the 'beginning and say whether or not a man is to be put to death. What he has to do is to say whether he is to stop the motive force of the law which has decided that a man shall be executed.
The Commission themselves declared in their Report that there is a great difference between this negative function of not interfering with the course of the law and any positive obligation that rests upon an individual. But if this proposal now made by the Commission is carried into effect, that situation will be changed. There will come a moment when in the jury box these twelve people will have to decide whether or not there are extenuating circumstances. That is simply camouflage, because if they say, "Yes,"

183
then the man will not be executed. If they do not say that there are extenuating circumstances, then he will be executed. So when they arrive at their decision in that room, the twelve of them, by their action, are either putting a fellow-creature to death or not. It is said that that is an intolerable burden to put on a judge. Why should we take twelve ordinary people, who know nothing, or very little, of the law, and know nothing about psychiatry, insanity and the motives that move people, who have none of the information, most carefully considered, which the Home Secretary has before him, collected as the outcome of long experience, but who come, all of a sudden, to this problem for the first time, and place on their shoulders this dread obligation? This is not a matter of their own choice; it is compulsion. They are picked out and called upon by law, under a penalty of fine or other punishment, to perform this duty. They are conscripts brought into the jury box.
A man who is a conscript in the Army may say, "I object to warfare; I am a conscientious objector. I will not kill any fellow-man, and nothing that you do will make me alter my opinion. You may impose what penalties you like, but I shall not change my mind." In such a case, the State recognises his feeling, if it is found to be genuine, honest and sincere: he is accepted as a conscientious objector, and is not called upon to do actual combatant duty. Will that be so in the case of these jurymen? If the High Sheriff summons so and so as a juryman, and he says, "I am opposed to the death penalty by conviction, and I will not bring in a verdict that a man shall be put to death, but will insist, in all circumstances, on a verdict of extenuating circumstances," what is to be done? At present, I understand there is no obligation on the Sheriff to admit conscientious objection. But you will have to admit it if you impose this duty in the case of compulsory service, of conscription, of jurymen. I think you will find there may be, almost for the first time, real controversy arising over jury service in itself if you impose this obligation as a matter of course upon any juryman who may be called upon to try a murder case.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has said, if there is disagreement on the second trial, what then?
184
It is bad enough when there is disagreement on the first verdict, and in cases of disagreement great objections and difficulties arise as to whether or not there should be a second trial. But what will happen if there is disagreement on the second verdict? The Lord Chief Justice suggests that the effect will be that there will be no verdict of extenuating circumstances, and the man will be hanged. Is that right? What is the Home Secretary to do in that case when the matter comes to him for the final decision? These are difficulties which will almost assuredly arise. Furthermore, it is known, and, indeed, mentioned in the Report of the Commission, that in discussions in the jury room before the verdict is given, where there is disagreement and differences of opinion, sometimes the one obstinate juryman or the two obstinate jurymen may be won over by saying: "We must bring in a verdict of Guilty'—it is clear that he is guilty—but we will put in a recommendation to mercy." And that is done. Of course, the recommendation to mercy imposes no obligation upon anyone.
This matter is of great interest, because the point now arises of the relation between this proposal and the procedure by which the Secretary of State recommends the exercise, or not, of the prerogative of mercy. On page 202 of the Report the Commission give some interesting figures as to what happens to recommendations of mercy, how many there are, and how many reprieves. I will just quote the summary which shows this. It is found that in the present century, during the last fifty years, juries in England have made recommendations to mercy which have not been acted upon by the Home Secretary, and where there has been no reprieve, in 112 cases. On the other hand, there have been 200 cases where the jury has not recommended but the Home Secretary has reprieved. Therefore it is quite clear that there are a large number of cases—112 plus 200, making roughly 300—in which the opinion of the jury does not coincide with the opinion of the Home Secretary. If this particular question is to be left to somebody to decide, there can be no doubt that it will be much better for the decision to be given by the Home Secretary, in the light of long experience and by the procedure that is pursued now, after the most careful deliberation, lasting perhaps for days, possibly with personal

185
consultation with the judge who has tried the case and with the expert advice of the whole criminal department of the Home Office, than for it to be clone by a jury at the end of a long trial, by a second reference; that is to say, by people who have no real knowledge either of the circumstances of the case or of the general considerations that should govern the matter. For that lea-son, I do not think that this course should be taken merely in order—and this is the only argument that is used in favour of it—to avoid the drawback, which is undoubtedly a real drawback, that there are a certain number of cases now in which the sentence of death is solemnly imposed while it is well known that in all probability the Home Secretary will issue a reprieve. I feel it is better that we should put up with that, rather than that we should try this novel and, indeed, unworkable expedient.
5.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a short time. As I told the noble and learned Viscount who moved the Motion, I am not in a position to make any pronouncement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the issues raised. I think your Lordships will not be surprised that that is so, when you regard this volume of 500 pages and when you realise that it took four and a half years for its authors to come to the conclusions which they there state, while we have had just over three months, I think, in which to consider it, at a time when there have been other matters demanding our consideration. However, I should like to take this, the first opportunity that I think anybody has had of doing so in public on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, of giving our most cordial thanks to those gentlemen who have given so much of their time and industry to compiling this work. It is, indeed, a fortunate thing that in this country we can rely upon such public service as theirs. It as appears to be the fact, many of your Lordships are unable to agree with one, and it may be with more, of the recommendations contained in the Report, that, I think, does not diminish the gratitude which we should feel for their labours.
I should perhaps add, in regard to the particular aspect of capital punishment
186
which is referred to in the Motion, that it is only one aspect,: for the Commission had to report upon a great number of subjects. Let me remind your Lordships of some of them. They are the abolition of the somewhat esoteric doctrine of constructive malice, which is one of extreme difficulty in administering the law; the extension of the scope of provocation as a defence to a charge of murder; the position of a survivor in a suicide pact; the minimum age below which the sentence of death may not be imposed; the criterion of criminal responsibility, both generally and specially, in regard to mental defectives; the form of the sentence of death; and various questions relating to the conditions in which the condemned man should be held. All these matters will have to be seriously considered by Her Majesty's Government. We have not thought it right to attempt a decision piecemeal upon the recommendations contained in the Report.
Let me add this: I believe that the discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House, and the weighty pronouncements which have come from so many of your Lordships, must be of the greatest assistance to Her Majesty's Government in coming to their conclusions. Your Lordships may be sure that full weight will be given to them. Although I am nit in a position to make any pronouncement, I think I can go as far as this: that the cogent arguments which so many of your Lordships have addressed to the House are likely to weigh as much with others as they weigh with me; and I hope that the noble Marquess who now leads the House will not think that I have gone too far.
These are matters upon which we should not lightly come to a conclusion—for this reason, if for no other: that we are all interested. I do not suggest that any of us is a potential murderer, but we are all possible victims. So these are matters which, in the public interest, demand our prolonged consideration. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if I say no more than this: that what has been said will be taken into the earnest consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I understand from what the noble and learned Viscount who moved this Motion said to me, that he does not propose to divide the House upon his Motion. If he did,

187
I think I should be bound to say that I could only advise noble Lords, before they voted one way or the other, to wait until we have heard what the decision of Her Majesty's Government is upon the question. But that is for the noble and learned Viscount to consider. I hope that your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy if I am not in a position to make any further pronouncement upon these proposals. I would only add once more how grateful Her Majesty's Government are to those distinguished gentlemen who have given their labours in this matter.
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has just said. I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division. I do not, indeed, believe in the importance of decisions in your Lordships' House by Division, either on this or on any other
188
subject. A Division would merely count heads, and what matters in this and other important questions is not the counting of heads but what is inside the heads, and where the weight of argument is really to be found. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for saying that what has been urged by those who have taken my view will be given consideration by the Government when they decide. In those circumstances, I have nothing further to say except to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911: and read lª.
House adjourned at six minutes before six o'clock.