CIVIL DEFENCE ("TRUTH"). (Hansard, 15 October 1941)

§ Mr. Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
I am sorry to take up the time of the House, particularly on a subject which affects the freedom of the Press. In normal times I do not think there is any more ardent advocate than I am of the freedom of the Press in this country, not only to print the things we like but to print the things we do not like. On that principle, I and a great many Members of the House take a stand in normal times. But in war time the situation changes. There is an old Latin tag, "Inter arma silent leges." In war everybody has to consider first the safety of the State. Normally there is nothing I dislike more than the State doctrine; but in this war liberty, freedom, and all those things which we normally support in this country are desperately involved. In this war the safety of the State must come first. It is by that test that the Home Secretary has to judge this great question of whether papers should be suppressed or not. It was on that test that he closed down the "Daily Worker." His argument that convinced me at the time was that the continued publication and circulation of the "Daily Worker" in the workshops of 1455 Glasgow and elsewhere was slowing down war production. If that was so—and nobody could know better than the Home Secretary—I think that that action was justified; I do not say that it is justified now.
It is by that test that I want the House to consider the question of the continued publication of "Truth." "Truth" is a weekly publication which used to have a great reputation in the days of Henry Labouchere, when I was young. It has now become a public danger. It is widely read, not so widely as the "Daily Worker," but very widely in the clubs and messes, by that large class of people who are referred to as the governing class in this country. Its circulation may not be very large, but for every copy issued many people read it. The effect of the continual propaganda put forward by that paper may be very great. Not only is it perpetually putting forward the policy of peace and reconciliation, and generally the old isolationist policy, but it is also, as it were, the nucleus of the controlled Press which would spring up if this country were successfully invaded.
I have to prove that the policy of this paper is dangerous to our war effort. I say that it is pro-Fascist, it is anti-Semite, it is pro-peace, it is anti-Churchill, it is anti-American, it is pro-German, and it is now anti-Russian. The whole House will agree that if that policy is being advocated week after week in this country, it is bad for morale, and that steps of some sort should be taken to stop it. So far as anti-Semitism is concerned, I need not make any quotations; there have been numerous libel actions, there have been attacks by the paper on such people as the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), Neville Laski and Gollancz. There may have been attacks upon non-Jews as well, but these people have certainly been attacked, and in some cases libel actions have been brought and substantial damages secured.

§ Mr. Haslam (Horncastle)
Have these people been attacked solely because they are Jews, or for other causes?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I do not know about that, but I say that it is an indication that the paper is anti-Semite when so much of that sort of stuff is brought forward. I 1456 pass to the charge that it is pro-Fascist and pro-German. I ask the House to consider the attitude of this paper towards the "Link," which used to be the Fascist organ in this country. This, I admit, was before we went to war. On nth August, 1939, this paper said—

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)
I think the right hon. Member has inadvertently misstated the position of the "Link," or else my memory is wrong. I thought that the organ of the Fascists was Mosley's "Action."

§ Mr. Wedgwood
The "Link" was a pro-German organisation. Here is the quotation from "Truth": The 'Link' is quite open about what it is doing. Many anti-Government propagandists pretend to be actuated by national welfare, but their plan is to push Britain, by hook or by crook, into a war with Germany.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
On 14th February, 1940, they said: If peace were concluded with Germany, and there is good reason to believe that it could now be concluded on terms which would satisfy any reasonable person. … Again, on 23rd February they spoke of the peace policy of the B.U.F., that is the British Union of Fascists, before and after the war as the same: Mind Britain's business.

§ Major Procter (Accrington)
Is that the "Link," or is the right hon. Gentleman reading from "Truth"?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I am reading from "Truth." This has been going on all through. I think that anybody who used to read "Action" and followed these extracts would see that practically the same arguments and stuff which appeared in "Action" appear now in this paper called "Truth." I come next to the anti-Churchill attitude of the paper. It says: Hitler bears close resemblance to Mr. Churchill. That was just a month before the war, at a time when Mr. Churchill was not in a position to influence our policy. Then, after the war: 1457 Mr. Churchill added another distinction to his conquest in the course of his speech on the wireless. He is the first man to call the Germans ' Huns.' Again: ''Whenever during the last war Mr. Churchill edified us with a cocksure pronouncement on the progress of hostilities it was always invariably the prelude to a bad reverse.''

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when giving his quotations also to give the dates of the issue in question, so that they can be checked in my Department?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I will give you the whole of the notes, and you can check them up afterwards.

§ Mr. Peake
Other people too want to know the dates.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
They can look them up in "Truth" themselves; it will do them good. That was in November, 1939. On 16th December, 1939, it says: Imagination boggles at Mr. Hore-Belisha and Mr. Winston Churchill wondering a single second over the failure of their Departments to meet their obligations. What they would worry themselves sick about would be if their own salaries were not paid promptly. On 23rd February, 1940, it says: Now that the sound and fury of Mr. Winston Churchill has been hushed awhile "— He was not Prime Minister then— when our Prime Minister quits his post in a middle of a war to cross the Atlantic we expect him to return with something more substantial than even an Eight Point Declaration. The humiliating impression is conveyed of the British Prime Minister standing cap in hand on America's doorstep or gang-plank. That was on 22nd August, 1941. In October, 1939, there was this statement: There is only one man in England who, in Mr. Churchill's reckoning, is fit to govern and that man, of course, as you will guess, is Mr. Churchill. That is the attitude of mind towards not merely a man in office but a man who has put up the best fight for us against the Germans. I now come to the paper's anti-American attitude On 29th September, 1940, they said: America is willing to fight to the last Englishman. On 6th October, 1940, they said: For 18 months Americans have feared any European who stood for peace in Europe. The U.S.A. is fiercely anxious for Europe to 1458 go to war because when Europe is at war, American industry booms. I ask the House to consider not only the effect of all this on our morale but on our relations with other countries. On 3rd November last year it was stated: Germany is not one of the favoured belligerents because she has no money. If that disability were removed America would supply arms to Germany as willingly as to us. On 19th September, this year, the paper said: While one welcomes the Prime Minister's assurance that every effort will be made to secure a peaceful settlement in the Far East, it is imprudent to put oneself into a position where one's life depends on blood transfusion from an expectant and an ambitions heir "— that is America— Even if America is willing to save the patient, what will her fee be? Home consumption is cut down to the bone. This is a decisive moment in a war, into which, if we had been influenced by their importunity, we should have plunged a year earlier when we were more unprepared. On 15th August, 1941, they said: We are glad to co-operate with Americans, not to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Is this what one would call "helping the war effort"? In connection with the meeting in the Atlantic it was said: I suggest to Mr. Alexander and Mr. Brendan Bracken that the appropriate name for our next battleship to be launched would be H.M.S. Hollywood. There was, as hon. Members know, a moving film taken of the service that took place on board. As to their pro-peace attitude, I will give one quotation, dated 6th October, 1940: The fact which appalled me was the state of mind that had been reached, in which peace itself should be a threat. They know as well as we know that peace would not be peace, but a truce. The basis of all the propaganda against us to-day is that we should be sensible and shake hands with Germany to-morrow, and have our throats cut about five years later. Let me give another quotation to show how they are pro-German. In a reference to the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary, before he became a Minister, they speak of him as "London's little dictator," and say: London's little dictator suggested to Sir John Anderson that he should watch the people who up to the outbreak of war wanted to strengthen relations with Germany. Mr. Winston Churchill on the Treasury Bench nodded his head in vigorous approval. 1459 On 24th November, 1939, there was a column letter by Major-General Fuller white-washing, German concentration camps by way of counter-blast to the Government's White Paper on German atrocities. Major-General Fuller was connected with Joyce in the Fascist movement. He backed up a book called "The Truth About This War," one of the pacifist publications which came out during the "phoney" war. On 26th July, 1940, there was a leading article insisting on Germany taking her proper place in the leadership of Europe. That was just after France went out of the war. As to their attitude to Russia, here is a quotation dated 8th August, 1941: Let us not deceive ourselves. If Russia does succeed in turning the tables on Germany, it would be she who would issue the invitations to the peace conference and we should be lucky if we got one. I think I have read enough to show even those people who think that "Truth" is the old newspaper they used to read when they were young, that at the present time this newspaper has become a positive danger, and that it is putting over propaganda which is very dangerous to our relations with other countries and dangerous to morale in this country. In my opinion, it is far more dangerous than anything that was put out either by "Action" or by the "Daily Worker" in the old days. In those cases one knew that the newspapers were brought out by the Fascists or the Communists, but here there is a newspaper which, masquerading as an ordinary journal, gets to people who otherwise would not read it.
The question is, What can be done about it? The other day I asked the Home Secretary whether he would treat this newspaper either as he had treated the "Daily Worker" or stop it by means of preventing it from getting paper on which to print its stuff. He said—no, he could not do it. I do not know why he could not do it, but there are other ways in which the same results could be achieved. As in the case of all newspapers, there is somebody at the back of this newspaper. It must be owned by somebody. Somebody has put up the money. In the old days, we knew that it was Labby's newspaper and that he found the money for it, and found also the money when he lost the libel actions.
1460 I have gone into the question of who owns the paper. There are 1,920 shares, of which 1,800 are in the name of Lloyds Bank, probably held for other people as nominees. They are £10 shares. It is not an excessively capitalised company and I do not believe that, with a capital of £18,000 they can possibly have paid their way, seeing the damages that they have had to pay in these libel actions, if they have paid them—if they have not insured against them. I judge from a study of the kaleidoscopic changes that there have been in the directorate that the bulk of the shares originally came from the National Publicity Bureau and the Conservative Party funds, but of course I cannot be certain about this. The National Publicity Bureau was an organisation got up, in 1931 I think, to put across the policy of the National Government. I do not blame the National Government or the Conservative Party for using their funds for propaganda. It is perfectly justifiable, and I have no doubt that in the early days, when "Truth" was a first-rate, respectable organ, they got value for their money.
As far as I can make out, the chairman of the business committee of the National Publicity Bureau is Lord Luke, and most of the directors seem to be connected with him, and it is possible that it may be his private money and not the money of the Bureau 01 the Conservative Party. I cannot tell about that but, looking at the names of the directors, it is pretty obvious that there was some connection between support of this paper and the National Publicity Bureau. That is now a great advantage because, while it is true that the directors have changed frequently, the people who own the bulk of the shares can, in future, change and direct the policy of the paper if they wish. It is really not necessary to suppress the paper or stop it getting newsprint. All that is necessary is to change the editor and put into that responsible position someone who supports the present National effort.

§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
How long is it since contact between the Conservative Central Office and "Truth" has broken down? I understand that until quite recently the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) was an official of the Conservative Central Office and at the same time chairman of "Truth."

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I did not want to bring in the hon. Member's name. Changes in directorship have been very frequent.

§ Mr. Bevan
Is it not a fact that until quite recently the hon. Member for West Lewisham was chairman of "Truth" and at the same time an official of the Conservative Central Office?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I do not think he is so any longer. I think that the actual chairman is the present- editor, Collin Brooks.

§ Mr. Bevan
At the time these statements which have been quoted were made, was it not a fact that the Conservative Central Office had a direct official connection with "Truth"?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
That is one of the things into which I should like the Government to inquire.

§ Major Procter
Is it fair for the hon. Gentleman to make an innuendo which he is not prepared, or is unable to justify.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am asking whether it is a fact that at the time some of these statements were made there was a direct contact between the Conservative Central Office and ''Truth'' in the person of a Member of this House who was chairman of the committee and a member of the Conservative Central Office organisation?

§ Major Procter
Is the hon. Member prepared to substantiate that suggestion?

§ Mr. Bevan
Certainly.

§ Mr. Haslam
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the name of Lord Luke. Does he say that Lord Luke was a director of this paper which was propagating the views he mentioned?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
No, he is not a director. Mr. Isaac Pitman, his son-in-law, and a Mr. Gray are at present directors, and I have no doubt that they are there to watch Lord Luke's interests, without taking any direction in the conduct of the paper. What I am urging is that they should start taking serious direction of the paper now and get rid of the editor, who is the man responsible, and put in his place an editor who can be adjudged to 1462 be a supporter of our war effort and our war aims.

§ Mr. Erskine Hill (Edinburgh, North)
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to allow time for an answer for the Government?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I have said all I wanted to say, except that all through these kaleidoscopic changes there appear the figures of Mr. Crocker and Sir Joseph Ball, not as directors of but as connected with "Truth." I understand these people are also on the Swinton Committee. It is improper that people in any sort of way connected with this matter should be on a committee which has the decision as to whether "Truth" should continue to exist. There is a great deal of secrecy about the committee, but if there is any connection between people who are connected with this paper and the Swinton Committee it is bound to create an unsatisfactory feeling throughout the country. I am more anxious to get the attitude of the Swinton Committee towards the Fascists and towards the Jews changed than even to get a change in the editorship of "Truth." That will give us a decent national line, and effective support of this Government. Better that than even to see the paper suppressed.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
The right hon. Gentleman who has raised this question, of which he gave notice last week, has left me totally inadequate time in which to reply to the observations he has made. A great many of the questions he has gone into are, of course, quite irrelevant from the Home Office point of view. He has raised the whole question of the control of the Press in peace and in war. Should the Press be privately owned? Should the shareholdings in newspapers be public? Should the owners of newspapers dictate policy to their editors? All those questions are very interesting, but from the Home Office point of view, they are totally irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Home Secretary last week whether He would take action against this paper. I can only say that this paper is, of course, read in the Home Office, as are many other papers, and my right hon. Friend can see no good ground for taking action against "Truth" under the Defence Regulations at the present time. The House is aware that before action can be taken to 1463 suppress a newspaper under the Defence Regulations there has to be the systematic publication of matter which is in the opinion of the Home Secretary calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution to a successful conclusion of any war in which His Majesty is engaged. In the statement which the Home Secretary made when the "Daily Worker" was suppressed he stated clearly the principles by which he should be guided. He said: This action has been taken not because of any change or development in the character of these publications, nor because of the appearance therein of some particular article or articles, but because it is and has been for a long period the settled and continuous policy of these papers to try to create in their readers a state of mind in which they will refrain from co-operating in the national war effort and may become ready to hinder that effort. It is my firm conviction that freedom of the Press should be maintained even at the risk that it may sometimes be abused. If in newspapers which share the national determination to win the war there is occasionally published matter which, though not intended to be harmful to the national interest, may nevertheless have a prejudicial effect, I recognise that the inestimable advantage of maintaining a free Press far outweighs the risks which such freedom may sometimes entail."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1941; col. 186, Vol. 368.] 1464 The House will also recall that the Government gave a pledge on this matter earlier in the war when it was stated: It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to preserve in all essentials a free Parliament and a free Press. It would be quite easy, in respect of a number of newspapers, by culling excerpts carefully over a long period, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to make out a case for saying that a newspaper is affecting the national war effort and ought to be suppressed. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt chose, from his point of view, the best extracts which he could, and I must confess that upon my mind, and I think upon the minds of hon. Members in the House, the effect of those extracts amounted in toto to something very small. But I would say in conclusion—and I wish I had rather more time in which to develop the point—that I am very greatly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been such a valiant champion of freedom of speech both in and out of Parliament throughout his whole career, should have brought forward a subject of this kind on the Adjournment.