Churchill on The Home Secretary Detaining Suspects Without Trial
DEFENCE REGULATION 18B
A SPEECH TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
OCTOBER 21, 1941
NOTE.—This speech was made in the course of a debate concerning the Home Secretary’s powers of detaining persons under Defence Regulation 18b and the prevention of Mr. McGovern, M.P., from visiting Northern Ireland.
THERE is no part of the powers conferred on His Majesty Government in this time of trial that I view with greater repugnance than these powers of exceptional process against the liberty of the subject without the ordinary safeguards which are inherent in British life. Those high-sounding familiar phrases like “ Habeas Corpus,” “ petitioner’s right,” “ charges made which known to the law,” and “ trial by jury “—all these are part of what we are fighting to preserve. We all care about them and understand them, and we are determined that they shall not be trespassed upon by anything except the need of self-preservation which arises in time of war.
I recognize that this legislation and the Regulations which are based upon it were passed at a moment of great danger. It possible that if in this lull—-and it is only a lull—the matter were considered, the House would be in a different temper. I must say that I should feel very proud and happy if I could come down to the House, even while the war was going on, and say, “Our position is now so good and solid, we now see the path before us so firm and clear, that even in time of war we can of our own free will give back these special powers.” Unhappily that is not the case at present. The time may come, but not now. In the meanwhile, I cannot conceive how Parliament can better keep control over the use of these abnormal powers than by insisting upon their being exercised in the discretion of a Minister present in the House and accountable to the House. The Minister has been made accountable to the House. He has come down to-day and has explained in the greatest detail his use of the powers in a particular case. I should think he feels it a most objectionable thing to have this discretionary power conferred on him ; but such a discretionary power there must be, and there must be a choosing between this and that. The House has given the power, and I am bound to say that the manner in which my right Hon. Friend has explained the whole position has brought home to the House, first, the submissiveness of the Executive to Parliamentary institutions, and secondly, the care with which these powers are exercised.
For my part, I hope that the day may come as speedily as possible, even before the end of the war, when we may be able to relieve ourselves of these exceptional powers, or some of them. In the meanwhile, I feel that we are entitled to ask from the House a general measure of support for the Minister charged with exercising them. There can be no question of going behind the powers of the House. The powers of the House are over-riding and inalienable, and everything that is done s done on the responsibility of the House, be it right or be it wrong The House has power to wreck the pro-posed action, provided, of course, it is confident that it is representing the country in the course which it is taking. Therefore, I hope the Debate when it ends may leave the impression that there has been no derogation from the authority and freedom of Parliamentary institutions I particularly resent the suggestion that we are adopting the methods of Fascist States We are not We are the Servants of the House. It may be true that the House will support its servants, but if it does not the powers in their hands are without effect, and so long as that fact is established it is absolutely improper, as well as unhelpful, to place us upon the level of totalitarian Governments which have no corrective legislature, no law but their own wills, no check on the enforcement of their own particular doctrines in any way they choose.