Lords Sitting of 4 October 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Inchcape—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE B.B.C. AND MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
3.5 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI asked His Majesty's Government what is the present method of controlling the programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation, including the news bulletins; which Minister is now responsible for the B.B.C.; and moved for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for raising two questions in your Lordships' House on two days in succession, but events move very rapidly, and we find that there are a great many matters which agitate the public mind. We think it is far better that they should be ventilated on the floor of your Lordships' House or of another place and answers, appropriate or otherwise, be given by His Majesty's Minister, than that the people should just grumble and be discontented and not know that there is another side to the case. Besides the question I have on the Paper, there is a similar question in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and I am not going to stand long between him and the House. My question arose out of an answer given by the noble and learned Lord the Minister of Information
1260
to a question by Lord Newton last week. There is some uncertainty left in the minds of your Lordships as to where the responsibility lies for the conduct of the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is to clear that matter up that I ventured to put this question on the Order Paper.
The Englishman, my Lords, used to grumble about the weather. He does not grumble about the weather any more now; he grumbles about the B.B.C. Everyone grumbles about it, and people do not always realise the great difficulties under which the B.B.C. have carried on since the outbreak of the present war. I do appreciate those difficulties. I know they had to move at short notice to a mysterious unknown place the name of which everyone knows and which has been given on the German wireless already, and that they had to carry on with a truncated staff, and so on. Furthermore, I am informed—perhaps the noble and learned Lord may confirm this or contradict it—that they cannot engage any artist to sing a comic song or anything else without the permission of the Minister of Information. Perhaps that means delay. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head; I am very glad to know that.
The complaints that are made are that the programmes have been uninteresting, and already, I think, there has been great improvement. That they are livelier and better now, I believe everyone will agree who listens regularly to the British programmes. They certainly have been, however, rather on the gloomy side. For example, last week I tuned in and heard a dreadful account by a gloomy female of the awful fate of a young lad who was left without his mother, who was then on her death-bed—a most harrowing business. I turned to the programme and found that this was a rendering of that world-famous novel East Lynne, which is generally considered the most tragic work in English literature. Whether this should be put on the air at this time I feel doubtful. There was also a version of The Murder in the Red Barn, a very tragic and melodramatic play; I wonder whether that was suitable at this time. There is too much mass murder going on in the world without these artificial aids to gloom, I suggest to your Lordships.
As I have said, however, there has been an improvement there; but my question is, who is responsible for these programmes? To whom should we address complaints? And a much bigger question is concerned, that of dispensing with the services of most of the Board of Governors; but that has been raised in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Attlee, and I therefore do not propose to touch on it now. It raises a big constitutional question in connection with the Charter of the B.B.C., and I am not going to venture to put that before your Lordships this afternoon for that reason. After all, the people do want entertaining at this time. They do not like to venture out of their own houses in the darkness, and they rely for their entertainment on the B.B.C. Although there have been improvements, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is aware of the need for further improvement. At the same time I make allowances for the difficulties.
Now I come to something far more important. I only wish to refer to two matters and the first is the British broadcasting to India. I did not give notice that I was raising this matter to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State, but I am sure he is aware of this, and I believe he would support what I say. India is being flooded just now with radio broadcasts from Germany. The reception is good, and these programmes designed for India are subtly presented and may have some effect. On the other hand, there is little from England and the reception is poor. There is some technical reason there, which I suggest should be looked into.
So much for India. With regard to the news bulletins, the universal complaint is that they are not full enough. We do not get enough news in them, and the time allowed for the giving of the news bulletins is frequently not used. Last Tuesday my noble friend Lord Snell asked a question about India, and the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, made a very important pronouncement on behalf of the Government. In the Nine O'clock News that night we had the usual colourless statement of facts which had appeared in the newspapers earlier in the day, and then at the end the announcer said, "We now have four minutes to spare, and we will put on a gramophone
1262
record of light music." And there was not a word about the statement of the noble Marquess. I took it upon myself to write to the noble Marquess, because if the House of Lords is going to be censored I think we ought to say something about it.
The following day my noble friend initiated a debate on India, in which the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and again the Secretary of State for India, all made very important statements—and the Indian situation is of importance at the present time. Again, in the Nine O'clock News there was not one word of these proceedings, but, as there were three or four minutes to spare, a gramophone record of light opera music was presented instead. Next day the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, introduced a debate on a very important subject, food production, and we had a statement, also of importance, from Lord Denham on behalf of the Government. This matter interests every agriculturist in the country and the general public; but not a word was said about it in the news bulletin. I really think this matter should be looked into.
Everyone knows that the German wireless propaganda is very active. I do not know how successful it is—a lot of it is obviously quite unsuccessful. But there is not really a corresponding activity on the part of our own wireless broadcasting. We have had two speeches on the ether on the great political matters of the day which carried weight and counted. One was the speech last Sunday by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the other was a speech earlier on by my right honourable friend Mr. Greenwood. Those two speeches were received in this country and elsewhere most favourably. Apart from them I am sorry to have to say there has been nothing that would really hearten our people, encourage our friends, or discourage our enemies. We should know who is responsible for this. One of the objects of my question is to find out, and I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, wishes to get the same information. We should know who is tackling the matter, and who will put it right. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether the same censor-

1263
ship is imposed on the British and Foreign Press and on the B.B.C. in regard to the dissemination of news and the expression of personal comment; what are the relationships of the Minister of Information and of the Minister who replies in Parliament for the B.B.C.; and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I believe it would suit the convenience of the noble Lord who is to reply if I were to speak now so that he can reply to both our Motions at the same time. I shall be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has covered the ground very vigorously, and as a matter of fact this question of the Ministry of Information has been before the public for fully a month now. This is the second debate we have had here. The matter has been referred to on several occasions in another place, and there have been questions which have elicited information on more than ten separate days in another place, so that, as a matter of fact, matters are now getting straightened out.
I want to bring up two things in particular to-day. The first is the fact that there has been a whole month before we could get this cleared up, and the second is that I believe we could have avoided a great deal of the trouble if the Government had acted sooner in establishing machinery for countering the propaganda of Dr. Goebbels. After all, Dr. Goebbels has been at war for fully a year. As I understand it, the object of the Ministry of Information and of the B.B.C. is to give friends and neutrals material, news, and opinions which will counter the misrepresentations of, and the attacks which are made upon, this country from Berlin, and also—and this is another important point—to influence German public opinion. Last spring, it seems to me, was the critical moment for influencing public opinion. I see by the Press that if anybody in Germany is so unfortunate as to be caught listening in to news coming from this country he is liable to severe punishment. Therefore I regret very much the delay there was in setting up some sort of machinery for replying to the constant misrepresentation which was coming from Dr. Goebbels and his organisation last spring.
I think that if a nucleus Ministry of Information had been set up and been in operation, and if they had taken over
1264
some of the functions of the B.B.C. last spring to deal with these attacks, not only in this country but in the Empire and in other countries in the world, a great deal of the trouble to-day might have been avoided. The B.B.C. by its constitution is unsuited for propagandist activity. By its Charter, as I understand it, it is intended to give news, and not to disseminate controversial political views. If a nucleus Ministry of Information had been set up, and if that Ministry had taken over those functions of the B.B.C. which were associated with the replies to Dr. Goebbels' attacks, I think a great deal of good might have been done. What happened was that when war was declared over a month ago, the Government had then to set up improvised machinery, collect a team, and fit it in with the B.B.C. So the first point I wish to make is that a great deal of the difficulty with which we have been struggling—for which I do not blame the noble Lord who is going to reply—might have been avoided if the Government had looked ahead, and had realised that there was here a serious attack being made upon us with which we ought to deal. I am afraid they were as remiss in dealing with that as they were in setting up an adequate Ministry of Supply. Many of us, during the past year, were constantly urging them to set up a full Ministry of Supply, and I think now it is generally admitted that the delay in doing so has been lamentable.
The second point I want to make is that this criticism has been going on, sometimes in Parliament, sometimes in the Press, sometimes between individuals, for over a month, and it should have been dealt with much more rapidly. Before I go on with that, I would just like to say a word about the points which are specifically referred to in my Question on the Paper. I do not want to go into them at any length because I realise quite well that many of the grievances and hardships and much of the criticism that existed a few weeks ago have been put right. There is no object at this date in reviving that controversy. But there has been a very great feeling of injustice on the part of many Pressmen, friendly, anxious to help, who have been held up by an unwise censorship and have seen their competitiors able to get their news and their views through much more

1265
rapidly than they could. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that all that sort of grievance has ceased to exist. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us whether he is the Minister who is responsible for the talks to our Allies, to neutrals, and to the enemy, and also whether he is responsible, or whether it is the Cabinet who are responsible, for the leaflets which are dropped periodically over Germany.
The noble Lord who preceded me referred to the inadequacy of the news sent out to India by the B.B.C. As I understand it, when war started, the B.B.C. ceased to relay news to India, and Germany had a free run. One has only to read the papers to see that there is considerable difference of opinion—a potential trouble—in India in connection with our war aims, and it would be a great pity if we did not take full, immediate, and adequate steps to deal with the accusations which are coming from Berlin. Berlin is accusing us of Imperialism and all that sort of thing. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the recent practice of only sending news to India in one language—English—has been improved upon. As I understand it, Berlin speaks to India in Hindustani and in four or five other languages, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that steps have been taken to put us on an equal footing with Berlin in this respect.
Also I hope he will be able to tell us who it is that is responsible for answering the misrepresentations sent out to India from Berlin. I am afraid he may say that that is left to India to deal with, that it is the All-India Radio Corporation which is expected to deal with the attacks and misrepresentations which come from Berlin. I want to submit to the noble Lord that in India there are neither men nor materials, nor is there the money, to deal adequately with this. In the present state of public opinion in India it would be unfair, unreasonable, and unwise to put upon the taxpayer of India the extra expense necessary for dealing with these attacks from Berlin. I hope the noble Lord will be in a position to assure us that he or his Department will deal with that. Then I saw in the papers the other day that concern was felt in responsible quarters in South Africa at the failure of the British Ministry of Information to counter effectively the insidious Nazi pro-
1266
paganda that comes over the air nightly from Berlin from the short-wave wireless station in Afrikaans. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some information as to whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to improve thenews service in Afrikaans.
I would like to take this opportunity of trying to see what is the original cause of the trouble. It is worth probing this and trying to find it out, because I am not such an optimist as to imagine that this is the only grievance we shall have against action of the Government. I want to see what it is that is really responsible for the muddle which has arisen and why it has been allowed to continue so long. I suggest that this has been going on for four or five weeks, and it may not be over yet, because we have not yet got that full effective Cabinet organisation which existed in 1917 and which enabled the Government then in existence to deal successfully with the prosecution of the war. There was an announcement recently that we were to have a War Cabinet. This is not a point I expect the noble Lord to deal with, but it is a point which he and his colleagues have to bear in mind. If you compare the Cabinet organisation and composition to-day with that which existed in 1917, you will find fundamental differences. Take the size. In 1917 the War Cabinet was about half the size of the present War Cabinet. If you take its composition, the object of the War Cabinet then was to have Ministers in a position to give their full time and attention to the successful prosecution of the war and to clear up difficulties, muddles, grievances, and deficiencies as they arose. It is quite impossible to expect that the three Service Ministers, who are members of the War Cabinet, should be able to find the time to settle expeditiously all the difficulties which have arisen in connection with this particular question of publicity. It does not concern them at all, and if they were to give a great deal of time to it their own departmental duties would suffer.
A large Cabinet consisting, as the present one does, of departmental heads, cannot possibly deal as rapidly and expeditiously with matters such as those which have arisen in connection with publicity as could a small, efficient War Cabinet consisting of Ministers not responsible for Departments. Then there is

1267
another point, and that is the age of the 1917 Cabinet and the age of the present Cabinet. I am not going to give their ages, but I suggest to any one interested that it is well worth examining the ages of individual members of the 1917 Cabinet and comparing it with the ages of the present Cabinet. I had an opportunity in 1917 of watching that Cabinet in operation, because I was part of the Secretariat, and it was extraordinary how quickly, when you had a small group of men, carefully selected for their gifts and qualities, without departmental responsibilities, they could deal with the most difficult problems which arise inevitably in war—munitions, shipping, food, whatever it was. They dealt with them quickly, and moved on to the examination of other problems as they arose. Now, however, we have a slow and cumbersome machine. It has taken over a month to settle this one question of publicity. Today the agitation is about publicity. To-morrow it may be about shipping, or it may be about munitions or equipment. I saw in a leading newspaper yesterday that the limiting factor in our fight to-day was not man-power but equipment, and I have no doubt that at no distant date there will be serious debates in this place and in another place about this question of the inadequacy of equipment for our fighting forces. Now the remedy for all this is not to get rid of regional officers. The remedy is to have a real Cabinet based on the successful War Cabinet of 1917. If we have that we shall be able to deal with the various matters, whether they be publicity or shortage of equipment, or ships or food or anything else, as they arise, swiftly and efficiently.
I have purposely strayed a little from the wording of my Motion because I wanted to take this opportunity of anticipating and preventing future trouble. It would not be right if the Government imagined that the whole country was absolutely contented with the way in which the war was being prosecuted. The country expects real war pace and real war machinery. The other day we had a Budget introduced in another place, and I am perfectly certain that the public are prepared to pay if they are convinced that there is the maximum effort and the maximum efficiency in the prosecution of
1268
the war. Until we get the maximum efficiency into the organisation of the War Cabinet we shall not have the maximum efficiency or maximum effort in prosecuting the war. As I said, I have taken the opportunity on this, the first controversial issue which has arisen since the declaration of war, to raise these points because it is only by going to the root of the problem and putting that right that we shall be in a position to avoid similar delays arising when other weaknesses are brought before the notice of the public.
3.33 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, while we are dealing with the question of the control of news I want briefly to suggest that there should be a much clearer indication by the Minister of the authority attaching to statements of Government policy. Let me give an example of the ambiguity which has been felt. On September 25 the papers reported Signor Mussolini's speech broadcasting peace moves, and clearly the reaction of our Government to that was a matter of great importance. The Press and the B.B.C. commented on that speech under the heading that "an authoritative source" indicates so and so, giving the impression that the Government entertained no very great expectation that much would come of Signor Mussolini's speech. Another illustration of ambiguity: the B.B.C. yesterday, commenting on the Prime Minister's speech, said that inquiry in Whitehall showed that the Prime Minister in effect had not indicated any weakening of previous statements. Is the public to regard that as an utterance of the Foreign Office? Why comment on the Prime Minister's speech in that case at all? If the Prime Minister himself is not clear enough, does he need any embroidery to tell the public what he meant? That seems to me an important point. The comment itself might suggest to neutrals or even to the enemy that there was some weakening embodied in the Prime Minister's speech.
Personally, I welcomed very much the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and that of the Prime Minister, that our Government were ready naturally to consider any proposals of peace that were made. The statement was perfectly explicit and everyone understood it. Why should there be a comment from an authoritative source, or an inquiry in

1269
Whitehall in any manner? The Government alone know what is possible in regard to peace, and they ought to have a perfectly free hand. The Government know that if they did see an opportunity of peace there would be immense support for any such move on their part. But on this question this is by the way. I feel that, for the information of the Government about what your Lordships' House thinks, a Secret Session would have a very great advantage. Returning to that comment upon Signor Mussolini's speech from "an authoritative source," the public is puzzled as to whether that was an official utterance. The attitude of the Government was of very great moment. Did it mean a considered Government view? Hardly, because the Cabinet had had no time to meet before that utterance was made. Did it mean that the Foreign Minister, or did it mean that only the Press Department of the Foreign Office, thought so and so? It seems to me it was too important a matter for the Press Department to take upon itself to give any colour to a Government statement. To a certain extent it committed the Government in the eyes of neutrals and of the enemy. I suggest that looseness is very unfortunate in regard to statements of such high policy. There ought to be the strictest control of utterances on such vital matters.
The point invites a rather wider question. What is the Government's method of control of utterances on war aims in the propaganda by leaflets? This is an illustration. The Government asked the German people in effect to throw over Herr Hitler, saying that we would deal with any peace-loving Government representing the German people; but a few days later Mr. Eden made a speech in which he spoke of the historic unreliability of the German Government and people as a tradition dating from 1864. I only point out that that was contradictory of the line of action taken in the Government's declared policy by means of leaflets. That is just another illustration of looseness. I should like to express the hope that the Foreign Secretary will not be too good-natured to his colleagues in the permission to speak on such matters of extraordinary importance, but will keep utterances of that kind for himself and the Prime Minister.
3.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, and would not have done so except for sundry observations which have fallen from my noble friend Lord Astor in introducing his Motion. I should like to refer briefly to points which he has raised, and first of all to the question of German propaganda. I believe it is always an advantage to give specific cases when you are talking upon such a matter, if one can do so. Only a few days ago a friend of mine returned through Finland and Scandinavian countries and arrived in this country after taking three or four weeks to do the journey. He was in Sweden for very nearly a fortnight. During that time he found the most intensive propaganda, by broadcast, through the Press and through trade. Our people really had not a leg to stand on, because whilst the German nationals have remained by order in Scandinavia, nearly all British representatives, or many of them, have come back to this country in order to try and find service, here or overseas, in connection with the war. He informed me that English newspapers were not procurable at all, and that during that fortnight The Times was only once upon the bookstalls. On the other hand German newspapers from Berlin—the Tageblatt and others—were obtainable on the morning of publication and were all on the bookstalls.
LORD NEWTON: They are much nearer.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My noble friend says they are much nearer. It is perfectly true that they are nearer, but it is quite wrong that German newspapers should be obtainable every morning full of German propaganda and that English newspapers should not be obtainable unless they are a week or ten days or even a fortnight old. In response to that remark I might also suggest that there is no war area between this country and Scandinavia over which our aeroplanes could not fly and take newspapers the same day, in the same way that Berlin newspapers are sent by air to Sweden. I only suggest to my noble friend the Minister of Information that there is a country which is being flooded with German propaganda in every direction. As far as trade is concerned, the

1271
Germans are practically forcing their trade upon the Scandinavian countries through the means of barter. They have got no funds wherewith to buy direct and so they are forcing their trade by means of barter, because the export trade of this country to Sweden is either not being fostered or is being interfered with. I mention that particular point and that is all I propose to say with regard to propaganda, but at least there is one set of countries which are immensely important in this war and which ought to have special consideration at the present time in regard to propaganda and to trade.
The other point which occurred to me when my noble friend was speaking was with regard to the War Cabinet. I would like to support whole-heartedly every word he said in that connection. Yesterday afternoon—I hope this is not a breach of privilege—I sat in the House of Commons in the Peers' Gallery and listened to the replies to some sixty or seventy questions on an Order Paper which contained 110 questions. There sitting on the Front Bench were Cabinet Ministers replying to questions, many of which were, to a large extent, of a parish-pump nature, when they ought to have been sitting in their Departments dealing with the many problems of most vital importance in the great war in which we are concerned at the present moment. I hope that the Government will take note of the words which have been spoken by my noble friend Viscount Astor on this matter and that they will consider the great desirability—in fact the grave desirability—of setting up a War Cabinet of a few members of the Government who will concern themselves only with the general policy of the war and not with departmental matters.
3.45 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I too, had no intention whatever of intervening in this debate, but listening to the speeches which have been made I was impressed more than ever by the vital importance to the country of doing everything we can to help ourselves in the way of propaganda. I believe we shall never be forgiven if we lose any opportunity that is offered to us of getting all the propaganda possible across to Germany. There is an establishment in this country which can give very considerable help,
1272
and that is the International Broadcasting Company. That company, as your Lordships may know, has had up to recently three powerful stations—one at Luxembourg, another in Normandy and a third on the Mediterranean, within a very short distance of the Italian coast. The Germans have been able to bring sufficient pressure to stop the Luxembourg station, but the other two are capable of working and are ready to work day and night.
Their usual work is of a commercial nature, consisting of advertisements and such like, which are listened to by over 300,000 correspondents in Germany. The International Broadcasting Company is, I understand, perfectly ready to help the Government in any way it possibly can to distribute propaganda from its stations. The company can do it and is only too willing to do it. I feel that we shall make a most vital mistake unless we make full use of a going concern that is ready to do so much for us, and I hope that the Minister of Information, to whom I mentioned the matter a day or two ago, will go into the matter very thoroughly and see if he cannot make use of the International Broadcasting Company's help in our propaganda.
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION (LORD MACMILLAN): My Lords, the discussion to-day on the two topics raised by my noble friends Lord Strabolgi and Viscount Astor has ranged over a very wide area, as indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, confessed. I should like to be given similar generous treatment at your Lordships' hands if I also depart a little from the specific questions on the Order Paper. I do not propose in any way to shirk the particular topics to which those questions are addressed, and I hope I shall be able to give answers that are satisfactory to your Lordships, but there are certain considerations of a larger order which have emerged from the discussion upon which I think I may most conveniently at this stage offer your Lordships such information as I can. Some of the topics—particularly those raised by my noble friend Viscount Astor and in the second part of the observations of my noble friend Viscount Elibank—dealt with the general question of the constitution of the Cabinet. I do not think that from so very junior a member of the Government as myself my noble friends

1273
will expect any answer. Indeed I think in this matter they regard me merely as a vehicle for their questions.
On the particular matter of the Ministry of Information, may I say that the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday regarding the steps which are being taken for the reorganisation of the Ministry was necessarily compressed, and I should like to take this opportunity of explaining in some detail the new arrangement, because it affects largely the matters which have been discussed here to-day. Under the scheme for the Ministry as originally framed, and to which I succeeded, the publication of information received from the Department and a system of voluntary censorship were associated with the main work of the Ministry—that is to say, the work of propaganda to which the noble and gallant Field Marshal referred. There was no doubt something to be said for this association of functions, but a very little experience showed serious difficulties. The most obvious anomaly was that the Ministry was erroneously held responsible by the public for the adequacy of the information disseminated by it, while, at the same time, it possessed no power whatever to require the Department to furnish it with information. That was a position which I think your Lordships will recognise no Minister could enjoy or indeed tolerate. Accordingly the main alteration which has been made has been to eliminate from the Ministry, all responsibility for the reception and dissemination of the official statements of the Service and other Departments and also, as a consequence, for the Press Censorship.
In peace time the Departments made their own publicity arrangements and they issued their official communications through the ordinary Press channels, with which they maintained close and useful contact. In war time—and here was the practical problem—the number of such official communiqués and also the number of Press correspondents naturally enormously increased, and the provision made under the roof of the Ministry of Information for the receipt and dissemination to the Press of such communications has obvious conveniences and has been appreciated by the Press. Accordingly, it is not proposed to scrap the facilities thus provided, but it has been arranged that while the former relations between the Press and the Departments
1274
are to be restored, all official communications made to the Press by the Departments shall simultaneously be made through the central channel which has been created and is at present in operation. This clearing house for Government communications and Press Censorship will for the future be under the charge of a separate head, entirely independent of the Ministry which will cease to have any responsibility for these activities. I have learned with the greatest pleasure that my friend Sir Walter Monckton has agreed to undertake the onerous task of Controller of the Press Censorship and Superintendent of the News Distribution Department. I am sure that no better choice could have been made.
This rearrangement at once enables a large reduction to be made in the staff carried on the books of the Ministry. Instead of the 127 members of the staff engaged in the News and Press Relations Section, a much smaller number will be required for the restricted work now falling within it, while the Censorship staff of 306 will also be removed from the Ministry. With regard to that apparently large figure on the Censorship side, it is right to point out that the Censorship works twenty-four hours a day, and eight hours' work on the Censorship is as much as anybody could be asked to do. Therefore the effective strength of the Censorship Department is of the order of 100, but in order to staff it and keep it open for the convenience of the Press night and day, it requires, of course, to have a staff in triplicate and that is why the number is so large. The actual number of documents—that is to say, cablegrams and articles handed in—runs every day to thousands and I do not think the staff of 100 is at all excessive for that purpose. However, the responsibility for that staff passes from my hands.
Another important change is in progress. Under the original scheme an elaborate regional organisation, as it was called, was contemplated, and when I became Minister it had already been in part set up. The result of an investigation of this part of the structure has satisfied me that the useful end in view can be achieved on much simpler lines and with a much reduced staff. I am going into the matter very carefully. These changes which I have indicated to

1275
your Lordships involve, in all, 560 members of the staff of the Ministry of Information. The transfer of the News and Press Relations Section and of the Censorship Section as well as the reorganisation of the regional staff, should have the result of relieving the Ministry of approximately one half of its staff. I think your Lordships will agree that in these circumstances, the admonition that the Ministry was overstaffed has been taken to heart and that the best possible effort in a very short time has been made to overhaul it.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Lord make one thing clear? He talks of the transfer of the Censorship Department. Where has it gone?
LORD MACMILLAN: A transfer of responsibility, not of location. The Censorship Department facilities—it is the voluntary censorship, of course, the noble Lord will understand—which have been provided under the roof of the Ministry of Information, that is to say in the University buildings, will continue there, but they will be under Sir Walter Monckton. They are a part really of the facilities provided for the Press. If I might be informal for a moment, I can explain it to your Lordships in a sentence or two. The large number of correspondents and the large number of messages received, involved, it was thought—this was the scheme originally of the whole apparatus—the provision of a sort of central clearing house, to which these messages could be sent and where they could be handled. It was impossible with such a large number of correspondents, for example, to preserve the comparatively simple method of the correspondent going to the particular Department and there getting his publicity; and the arrangement that was set up has been most acceptable to the Press. I can show you letters which I have received signed by almost all the responsible Press agencies. It was not their complaint at all that the apparatus was unsatisfactory; their complaint was that the news given was inadequate. That was their real complaint, and I should like that to be understood. The complaint was not with the apparatus set up, because it was a very useful apparatus.
Let me explain how it works. When a communiqué comes through to this place in the Ministry it is at once made available to all the Press representatives
1276
who are there. They are congregated in one place and therefore it is not necessary to send it all over the place to the various correspondents. They can go there, and they will get that communiqué altogether and at once, which is an advantage, so that one may not steal a march over another. Then from the mechanical side, the advantage is this, that there have been provided all round the room where the announcements are made, a series of telephone booths, so that the moment that a correspondent receives the Government communication he can go at once and telephone to his newspaper office and get it through without any delay. These statements, of course, do not require to be censored at all, because they are in the actual text of a Government-issued statement and therefore are not for censorship.
But, of course, the newspaper man wants to do a great deal more than that. He also wants to write up the matter. If he prepares an article, he may have no dubiety about it being an article entirely free from any danger of D.O.R.A., and he then has no trouble, because the Press in this country is, at the moment, entirely free from any censorship. If he publishes an article which contains matter which is struck at by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, that is his account and he would be liable to prosecution accordingly. But the facility that is provided under the roof is this; a censor has been installed there and the newspaper correspondent who wishes to produce his article can write his article and step across to the counter of the Censorship and hand it in. If it passes the censor there, then if he publishes it he is entirely protected against any prosecution. That of course is a great advantage to the newspaper man; he takes no risks whatever if the article is passed; and in the great majority of the cases, hundreds of the cases, the article is handed back almost at once. I could give your Lordships figures and details of the very short time that takes, and there has been really no serious complaint about that at all.
If he chose not to avail himself of this facility there and were to send his communication through the post—I am talking now of foreign correspondents—then, of course, it would be intercepted by the regular War Censorship, which is quite a different matter and for which we are

1277
not responsible at all, just as any letter which your Lordships like to write to anybody abroad at the present moment is subject to the general censorship of the War Office and can be stopped and opened and read. We are all subject to that, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Ministry of Information or this voluntary censorship. But the foreign correspondent also has this great advantage, that if he writes an article and wishes it sent to his newspaper, instead of posting it and subjecting it to all the risks and delay by the ordinary War Office Censorship, he can hand it across the counter to the Censorship Department and, if it is passed there, it then goes away in his postal packet and the War Office Censorship has nothing whatever to do with it. These are two very valuable facilities: one, the facility of having the means of utilising the telephones and all the apparatus that exists there, and the other to have at your hand a censor who, if he passes your material, franks it so far as any other censorship is concerned. The Press appreciated that, and when the decision was made that it was undesirable to prevent the access of the Press to the Departments and that it should be restored, it was accompanied by his: that we should retain also what I may call the mechanical facilities on the spot. His Majesty's Government were quite willing to do that, and those facilities will be continued, but the question of the responsibility for the news is quite a different matter.
I now pass to the general matter which has been raised by noble Lords. It may now be asked, what are the activities for which the Ministry will continue to exist? These activities, I have no hesitation in saying, are of the highest value and importance: they will be the functions commonly described by the unattractive word "propaganda." It is exceedingly unfortunate that that word "propaganda" has acquired so sinister a signification, which it certainly does not enjoy in the nomenclature of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, but it has unfortunately, owing to misuse by persons not in this country, I hope, achieved a very unfortunate notoriety. If it be used in the benevolent sense, it is really the work of the Department of which I have been put in charge. This war is in a very
1278
special sense a war of ideas. It is accepted by our people and by our Allies as a crusade for great principles. It is essential—is it not?—that in season and out of season, at home and abroad, our cause should be constantly presented in its true light. This task of presenting and constantly reinforcing our true position affects our home front, our Allies, neutral countries and the enemy. In our own country—and I turn to it first—happily, owing to the freedom which we still enjoy and for which we are fighting, the existing agencies of publicity—Parliament, the Press, the wireless, the cinema and the platform—will no doubt play a most important part. But even at home here there is much to be done in the supply of useful information and its circulation to maintain and strengthen the morale of our own people at home.
Abroad, the field is the world. It is of the utmost importance that we should be able to gauge the mood of other countries, to encourage support for our cause, and to counteract insidious propaganda against us. Here the task of the Ministry is on the one hand mechanical: to ensure that all means of communication with countries abroad are kept working as efficiently as possible, so that our newspapers, our broadcasts, our films and our other agencies of publicity may get the best chance of circulation. On the other hand, the gathering of information as to the state of feeling outside our country, the keeping of a watchful eye upon every movement inimical to our interests, and the preparation of material for dissemination abroad, are exacting, important and delicate tasks which it will be the duty of the Ministry to discharge. I wish it to be the constant effort of the Ministry to keep our case before the world with dignity and veracity. It will be seen, my Lords, that the Ministry is left with no mean task, what I venture to think is really its true task. This will be to supply the intangible munitions of the war, and these munitions may well prove in the long run scarcely less important, scarcely less effectual, than the material weapons of war.
I cannot conclude these observations without paying a tribute to the staff of the Ministry, who have been subjected to so much criticism. I would remind the House that the officials whom I found at

1279
work at the Ministry—not of my choosing—did not seek their own appointments or thrust themselves upon them. They were invited by the Government to lend their aid at the time, before the outbreak of war, when the Ministry was in the process of formation. They responded to the invitation extended to them, and many of them generously abandoned their vocations and agreed to serve the Ministry without any remuneration at all. They have worked long hours and have devoted themselves unstintingly to the tasks assigned to them. It is not their fault—and I stand here as their champion—if the organisation which they have so loyally served has been found to require recasting and we are able to dispense in many cases with their services.
It is not a pleasant task to have to dispense with the service of people who have made great sacrifices to undertake work which they have been told was of value and to which they have given long hours. That task, however, must be discharged, and I must brace myself to do it, but I think it is hard that in addition those who have taken up the tasks assigned to them in that way should at the same time be the subject of obloquy. No better evidence could be given of the desire of the staff not to obstruct but to assist in every way the rearrangement of the Ministry's work than the fact that all the high officials, from the directors downwards, have placed their appointments at my disposal so as to allow me the freest possible hand in my task. I should add that the same spirit of ready co-operation animates the entire staff of the Ministry.
I thought it might be helpful if your Lordships had these further explanations of the future task of the Ministry and of the rearrangement of its responsibility. It is now possible for me to address myself to what I conceive to be the real task of the Ministry of Information in war time—a task which was complicated and rendered difficult by the association with it of certain responsibilities which were unsuited to it and which involved a large amount of this controversy which has arisen—which, if I may tell your Lordships, I entirely understand and do not resent in the least, because I have been one of the first to appreciate it. But I have felt the difficulty of responsibility with no authority attached to it. That I
1280
am glad to say has been removed and it will now be possible for the Ministry to address itself to just the kind of questions which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, raised. I have just had in view the point he raised, and the indignation I felt when I heard of the late arrival of our papers, especially in the Scandinavian countries, would have satisfied the severest critics, but it is very difficult to take up these practical questions when the whole time one is concerned with the structure of the Ministry whose work one is trying to do.
I confess frankly—I stand here in a white sheet—that there are many things hick I wish to do and am eager to do, but I cannot get at them because I have to spend all my time considering whether a particular committee is or is not functioning, whether so-and-so could be removed, and other such questions, which, important as they are, are only antecedent to the real purpose of the Ministry and, after all, are not getting on with the propaganda work. I hope that with the rearrangement, which has been effected with the assistance of the War Cabinet, which has been most indulgent to a new Minister in this matter, we shall be able to get the work going and to meet the many criticisms which have been made and of which I am fully conscious. I am addressing myself to these problems with all the ability I have: many of them have been tackled already and some good improvements have been made. It will take a little while, however, until we can overcome some of the mechanical difficulties and also what I may call the constitutional difficulties.
I am afraid I am making too long a statement in your Lordships' House, but I should like to take a few particular points to deal with in answer to the noble Lord's question on the Paper. First of all with regard to the question of who is the Minister who now replies in Parliament for the B.B.C. The constitutional position is really quite simple. Certain of the powers exercised in time of peace by the Postmaster-General under the agreement made between himself and the Corporation have been transferred to the Minister of Information, that is, to myself. If your Lordships would wish to know what are those powers which have been transferred, I have them here. They are those which were contemplated

1281
for transfer on the outbreak of war. They are not very extensive powers. I shall enumerate them.
The first is to prescribe broadcasting hours. The consequence is that the Director of Broadcasting has consulted me on several occasions as to the most suitable hours for broadcasting, and that matter has been most amicably arranged between us. Among other things I was able to arrange for a broadcast at seven o'clock in the morning of news which was much sought after by people who had to go to their work early and wished to get news before they started the day. That was arranged under this power which I possess of prescribing broadcasting hours. I was also able to meet some views of the Press, who thought that the particular hours at which the news bulletins were given were rather unfair to them—rather stealing a march on the evening editions. It is not possible, of course, to satisfy everyone in that respect, but one has to try to keep as fair a balance as possible between competing media of publicity. The second power transferred is to give notice of any veto, either particular or general. I have the authority, if anything is submitted to me that is going to be broadcast, to veto it.
LORD STRABOLGI: Does this include songs and music?
LORD MACMILLAN: I think it would, but I should not like to. It is put in quite general terms under the agreement—"to give notice vetoing any broadcast matter, either particular or general." Those are the words. The next is to prescribe conditions for television service. As your Lordships know, the television service has been suspended. Another is to approve employment of an officer or servant who is not a British subject, so I have that grave responsibility in connection with any broadcast. The next is to approve the use of the stations for messages other than broadcasting matter—I do not quite know what that means—and to secure control in emergency. These are the transferred powers and these were transferred to me, and the transfer is in accordance with preparations made in peace time. No statutory powers whatever were required for this. The change has been carried into effect under a supplemental agreement between the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is dated
1282
August 3, 1938, and the notice given to the Corporation on behalf of the Postmaster-General on September 5, 1939. I have looked at this, and noble Lords may take it that they are mere executorial documents carrying out the agreement, with the result that, this notice being given, those particular powers which the Postmaster-General in peace time could exercise passed to the Minister of Information.
Then I am asked what is the present method of controlling the programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation, including the news bulletins. Since the establishment of the Corporation by Royal Charter more than twelve years ago, that is, on January 1, 1927, the Corporation has been invested with the maximum of freedom in regard to the day-to-day management of the broadcasting service. The position of independence secured to the Corporation, with the approval of Parliament, in time of peace has not been altered by the transfer of Ministerial responsibility to which I have just referred. The Lord Privy Seal indicated in another place on July 28 last that it was the Government's intention that the Corporation should continue to have its customary independence, subject to liaison with the proper Department of Government, and subject to the same requirements of war-time censorship as are applicable to the Press. Consequently the responsibility for the programmes, and particularly those items which have disturbed Lord Strabolgi so much, is not my responsibility. Although I suppose I could exercise my autocratic powers and stop East Lynne, I did not conceive it to be my duty to do that. In fact, I am glad to say I did not hear it. Nor was I disturbed by The Murder in the Red Barn. You see, you always have the privilege of not listening, which is one of the greatest privileges I know in connection with the B.B.C. Therefore, I myself remained undisturbed by these distressing exhibitions, but I really can take no responsibility at all for these things.
It is of course an extraordinarily difficult thing to arrange programmes which will suit everyone. I remember Sir John Reith telling me, when he was Director of the B.B.C., that his postbag every day was an extraordinarily interesting revelation of human nature. It contained probably a thousand letters, saying "Your programme last night was one of

1283
the most delightful and elevating experiences that I have ever had, and I do hope you will repeat it all next week." The other letters contained the most violent vituperations, saying "Why do you broadcast such worthless and discouraging, unpleasant material?" Well, it is very difficult in those circumstances—quot homines tot sententiae. The difficulty is that in matters of taste, of course, there is no absolute standard, and it is impossible to satisfy everyone. But we all have our own, and I think our very pronounced, tastes in these matters, and I am afraid that even I myself must confess that I have not always appreciated the propriety of certain items in the programme. But we have thought it better in these circumstances not to make Parliament or a Parliamentary Minister the arbiter elegantiarum. After all, I should not like to be the person who should say what is to be done and what is not to be done.
It is admirable that we should have had speeches such as we have had from Lord Strabolgi, and from many others in other places as well, because that criticism does reach the B.B.C. It reaches those who have the real responsibility, and who must make up their minds as to the programme. But I think it would be most unfortunate if we had a bureaucratic programme. And accordingly, I would rather take the risk of some items being distasteful to myself, or even to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, than that there should be dictation to the B.B.C. as to what it should provide. The B.B.C. is most sensitive to public criticism in all these matters, and when it ascertains that something is not going very well I can assure your Lordships that its postbag is vociferous, and it very soon responds to public feeling.
The last point was the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised, about the censorship of the B.B.C. The Corporation is, in accordance with the expressed intentions of the Government, subject to the same requirements of wartime censorship as the Press. Its news bulletins are for the most part derived from the same sources as the news published in the Press. To a large extent the information which they contain has been collected in the same ways, has passed through the same channels, and
1284
has been treated in the same manner. The bulletins which the Ministry of Information is enabled by other Departments to issue are placed at the disposal of the Press and of the broadcasting service at the same time and in the same manner. It is fortunate that a like sense of responsibility and careful regard for the national interest animates both the Broadcasting Corporation and the Press of this country. It is therefore possible to apply to both the same principle whereby advice on questions of doubt can be voluntarily sought and authoritative guidance can be given.
The Corporation does not at any time express its own editorial views on current affairs. The speakers employed to give broadcasting talks are subject to the same requirements of control in the national interest as writers in the Press. So that when the B.B.C. proposes to make any statement, or any comment, such as has been made recently on various matters, the B.B.C. authorities can, if they like, come to our Censorship Department and ask, "Will that be all right?" If they are told that it is all right, then they are absolved from any further responsibility. If they do not choose to submit it, and do it on their own responsibility, then it is their own responsibility and they are answerable just in the same way as a newspaper would be for having published matter which they ought not to publish. But we do not control them in the sense of any compulsory censorship. Just as when you read your paper in the morning you may know that you are reading an uncensored newspaper, so also when you listen to the B.B.C. news you know that it is uncensored news, subject only to this, that they are entitled to consult the Censorship Department as to whether it may be proper or not proper to include any particular item, and if they are told by the Censor that it is all right, then they are free to use it without fear.
There were so many topics raised that I fear I am trespassing quite unduly on your Lordships' time. But may I conclude by dealing with one specific matter of which Lord Strabolgi was good enough to give me private notice, and that is the question of the reporting of Lord Zetland's remarks on India in this House? That applies, I gather, to Tuesday, September 26. I have had this matter looked up. The usual amount of

1285
time given to the news bulletin at nine o'clock, which is the news bulletin to which probably most of your Lordships listen, is 15 minutes. The news bulletin that night lasted 18 minutes, and the next night just over 20 minutes; but 15 minutes is more or less the allotted time. On September 26, 50 per cent. of that news bulletin was devoted to House of Commons discussions, and it is perhaps not unnatural that on that night so large a proportion of the time should have been given to Parliamentary news because that was the day on which the Prime Minister made, in the House of Commons, his fourth war survey.
Your Lordships also had the advantage of hearing that in this House from the Leader of the House, so that the matter was common to both Houses of Parliament. That was also the day on which the First Lord of the Admiralty made his survey of the naval war. Accordingly, these were two items of first-rate importance, and the editor of the news section of the B.B.C. on that occasion thought that was as much of the news period as should be devoted to Parliamentary news. Perhaps more attention will be given to the House of Lords now that the Minister of Information is a member of your Lordships' House! I may do what can to promote that, but the excuse, if excuse need be made, was that there was matter in the House of Commons of very great importance and interest which occupied half of the allotted period for news. I would yield to no one in recognising the importance of India at the present moment and of any statement that comes from my noble friend on that subject, but it was with no desire to belittle the importance of his statement that it did not find a place in that news bulletin. It is a very difficult matter to select from among the important and competing items of news those which should be presented on a particular occasion, within the very short time—namely, fifteen minutes—which is allotted.
With regard to the other matter to which my noble friend alluded—Lord Denham's statement with regard to agriculture on September 28, that again was not a matter with which we interfered in any way. I gather from the B.B.C. that, important as that statement was, almost all the material had been quite recently broadcast from the Ministry of Agriculture. It was an important restatement,
1286
but it did not contain anything specially new. I have said all I can on these matters—
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Will the noble Lord say something about leaflets?
LORD MACMILLAN: I suppose what the noble Viscount has in mind are the leaflets distributed in Germany. They are produced by the portion of the Ministry which is concerned with propaganda in enemy countries. My relationship to that portion of the work of the Ministry is, as noble Lords will understand, rather a special one because it has some association, naturally, with the Secret Service—that is to say, the methods of approach to enemy countries are not like the methods of approach to other countries, and therefore there are certain aspects of it into which I cannot go; but so far as concerns the mere question of the distribution done by aeroplanes, which is common property, these leaflets were prepared in that Department—the Department of the Ministry which is concerned with enemy propaganda—and copies of them have been made available, most of them have been published, and that is really all there is to be said about that. They have been prepared in the Department and distributed with the approval of the War Cabinet. As to whether they are effective or not, we can only judge from the fact that in Germany it has been made a capital matter to be seen reading one of them, so that they appear to attach considerable importance to them. We have ascerained that there has been a very wide distribution, and many people have thought we ought to do more of it. There is another view that we ought to do less. That is a question of policy on which it is very difficult to pronounce. Now I have covered almost all the matters. There was a reference to South Africa. I am glad to say we have now got a news bulletin going in Afrikaans. That has only recently been established. With regard to transmission to the Indian Empire, there were technical difficulties at first, but we will get over them quite shortly.
One thing in conclusion with regard to the B.B.C. which your Lordships might note. The performance of the B.B.C. must not be judged by its Home Service alone. This is a part of its responsibility which has greatly increased during

1287
the last twelve months, and notably since the war began. The B.B.C. maintain at the present time two overseas services—a world service, running for twenty-two hours out of twenty-four for the benefit of listeners in the Empire and in remote foreign countries, and a European service runing for nineteen hours a day. In these services they are now broadcasting daily twenty-eight news bulletins in fifteen different foreign languages. These are, for the most part, short-wave programmes that can be little heard in this country as they pass beyond our coasts. Neither their service to the country nor the burden which their maintenance imposes on the B.B.C. should go unmarked or unappreciated. I beg your Lordships' indulgence for a very long address, but the topics were so numerous.
LORD BIRDWOOD: Can the noble Lord say anything about international broadcasting? That is a matter of vital importance. Some of us heard the German broadcast last night, and if we were to use an organisation like the International Broadcasting Corporation, replies could be sent immediately, and it is vitally important we should make full use of it.
LORD MACMILLAN: I shall undertake to consult the department of the Ministry concerned.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: Can the noble Lord make clear what authority attaches to statements by the B.B.C.?
LORD MACMILLAN: You must attach just the same importance to them as if you had read them in The Times, the Daily Telegraph or the Daily Herald—that is to say you take them as statements of importance, but nothing more. It is just the same as if you read in the newspaper, "We understand on good authority." They are treated just as the newspapers, unless they submit a matter to us or are asked to do a certain thing. The position of the news bulletin is just the same as that of the newspaper.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I ask two questions on points which the noble and learned Lord did not quite clear up? One is about the leaflets. Who is responsible for the contents of the leaflets? Is it the noble and learned Lord the Minister, or the War Cabinet? I was not quite certain.
1288
The other question is about the broadcasting to India. The noble and learned Lord said it was proposed to improve that. Does that mean in the number of languages used, or does it mean that the B.B.C. or the noble and learned Lord is now going to supply the material for dealing with the specific charges which are made by Berlin?
LORD MACMILLAN: My Lords, as regards the composition of the leaflets I am afraid I must take responsibility. Some of them were prepared before I took office I understand, and I did not have the opportunity of being their critic. I have seen one or two of those that have since been distributed before they were distributed, and I did make certain suggestions myself upon them. They have also been considered, I know, in some instances by the War Cabinet, but I think I must take the responsibility for them because they are part of our enemy propaganda and they are public documents known to members of your Lordships' House and another place. As regards the Indian matter, I am afraid I shall have to look into that in order to give a satisfactory answer, and if the noble Viscount will allow me to communicate with him outside the House I shall be happy to give the information about this matter.
4.32 p.m.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord is here there is a matter of great importance to be cleared up. I refer to the answer of the Minister in regard to points raised by my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton. Are we to understand that such a statement as that which was made upon the speech of Signor Mussolini—a comment as it was called—was the work of some official of the B.B.C. without any reference to anyone else? Similarly, last night at nine o'clock, when the news was given, there was a summary of the speech of the Prime Minister and a summary of the speech of Mr. Lloyd George, and an impression may have been conveyed, and in fact was conveyed, that the Prime Minister was not so unfavourable to the speech of Mr. Lloyd George as some people perhaps might have expected. Then there was this statement at the end about inquiries in Whitehall. What does that mean? To begin with, does it mean that you are

1289
strolling down Whitehall and see a policeman and ask him what the Prime Minister's speech means? Are we to understand that a statement like that is made by some B.B.C. official and broadcast to millions of people in the country without any higher authority? The people who listened to such a statement do not know whether it has any real authority, but they naturally think it does give an official interpretation of the Prime Minister's meaning. The matter is one of incomparable importance, and I want to be clear from the Minister as to whether these statements are put in by some officials of the B.B.C. without reference to any higher authority. If that is so then the practice ought to be stopped at once.
4.34 p.m.
LORD MACMILLAN: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty in replying to the points raised with regard to Signor Mussolini's speech and the Prime Minister's because I did not have notice of these particular questions. If I had had notice I would have looked them up. My answer was quite a general one. When anything is submitted by the B.B.C. to the Ministry of Information the Ministry of Information is entitled to say, "You shall or shall not publish that." There is a right of veto, but the Ministry is not conversant with all that they publish, and whether or not in these particular instances they saw the news section I honestly do not know, but they may have. The general policy is this, that we do not control their news bulletins any more than we control any news bulletin in the newspapers, subject only to this, that they must publish anything that the Government requires them to publish and that we will censor for them anything they desire us to censor. If a statement is made in a newspaper that "it has been ascertained in authoritative quarters," or something of that kind, we take that for what it is worth, and the fact that something is stated by the B.B.C. ought not to give it any more authority than the authority of a responsible newspaper, because the B.B.C., after all, is only a vehicle of publicity like anything else. It is true it is thought in some quarters to have a much more responsible position.
The broad fact which people in the country should understand is that the B.B.C. in this country is independent.
1290
Many people think that it is an organ of the Government, but it is not, and I think it undesirable that it should be, or that we should dictate to the B.B.C. what news they will give and what they should state. I think I appreciate the point which both noble Lords have brought to my attention, but although I cannot at the moment answer the specific case which has been referred to I will look into it and consult with the Director of the B.B.C. upon the complaint. I appreciate that it is a most important matter, but I would like to make it clear once more that we do not fetter the B.B.C. any more than we wish to fetter the Press. I think it would be undesirable to do so. If we did we would acquire a responsibility which would be of a very dangerous character.
4.36 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, out of respect to my noble friend Lord Snell, who has another Motion down, I do not propose to press the demand for Papers, otherwise I would ask your Lordships to support me if necessary to a Division. I also refrain from pressing for Papers out of sympathy for the noble and learned Lord, and if he would allow me to do so, I include also Lord Camrose. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Macmillan, and the noble Lord, Lord Camrose, have obviously inherited a hopeless muddle of unpreparedness and inefficiency; they are trying to put that right and we all wish them God-speed in doing so. In this connection I am reminded of what was said by the historic sergeant when presented with a new batch of recruits during the last war. His remark was: "Thank God we have got a Navy."
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, as the matter in my Motion has been dealt with, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NAZI LEADERS' INVESTMENTS.
4.38 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government if any steps have been taken to acquaint the German public with the charges against prominent Nazi leaders with re-

1291
gard to the investment of their funds in foreign countries; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether any announcement has been made on this particular point, but I have no scruples in asking the question now because, from the point of view of propaganda, I think it is a remarkably important one. I endeavoured to raise this question about ten days ago, and I was told, not for the first time in my experience, that it would be inopportune to do so because they were awaiting further details of a documentary nature. Well, at one time I was interested in propaganda myself. During the former war I was in fact for a time in charge of Foreign Office propaganda, and one lesson I learned was—I may be mistaken, but certainly my impression was—that unless you are prepared to take certain risks you are not likely to do much good. I hope I have as much regard for truth as anybody else who has ever been concerned with propaganda, but it seems to me that the circumstances are peculiar. It seems to me that if you are satisfied the substance of charges which are made are correct then you are justified in going ahead and leaving the details to look after themselves later on.
Here is a case in point. I cannot imagine any better subject for propaganda, and I regret very much that there should have been any delay in dealing with it. Everybody knows the charges that have been made and which have appeared in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph appears to be the only organ which realises the importance of the question. Now these charges are of two kinds. The first is an allegation that the Nazi leaders, who I believe are idolised by their fellow-countrymen, have amassed large fortunes by means which we know nothing about, and the other charge is that the fortunes which they are alleged to have made have been invested in America and other foreign countries. Now the first charge requires no proof at all. We know well enough that the leaders who are mentioned in the statement are men who are now enjoying very considerable fortune, and, if I am not mistaken, there are certain members of this House who are in a position to speak on and give evidence with regard to the luxury in which those leaders live. I
1292
observed with interest the other day that before the British Ambassador left he was entertained by General Goering who, with that vulgar ostentation one would expect from him, showed him his artistic treasures which I believe belonged, until a short time ago, to various museums in Berlin. Whether or not they have now acquired a permanent residence in General Goering's house, I do not know, but it is quite immaterial.
Anyhow, it is quite obvious that these men live as if they were extremely opulent. That is a fact which cannot be denied. But the really important question is what have they done with the money, if they really have made the money, and there is every reason to suppose that they have. I cannot conceive anybody who has made money, whether by legal or illicit methods, in Germany, investing it in Germany. Germany is the last country in the world where anybody would be likely to do anything of the kind because in all probability, as far as I can see, in five or six months time Germany will become Bolshevist and money there will be no good to anyone at all. There can be no object in making a fortune and keeping it in Germany. Obviously the only thing to do, if anyone has any money, is to get it out of the country. Any such operation, as all of us know who have been in Germany, is one of very great difficulty. It is difficult to get out as much as ten marks. Therefore if these people have really been able to get money out of Germany and deposit it in America and other countries, they have shown very considerable astuteness. The only one of them, as far as I know, who has made any attempt to rebut the charge, is Dr. Goebbels, and what does his refutation amount to? He says, if anyone can discover his money he is prepared to give part of it to him as a reward. That is not a denial that money is invested abroad, and fortifies me in the belief that the charges made are perfectly true.
One of the objects of propaganda is to promote, if you can, despondency in the enemy country. I can conceive few things more likely to create despondency than to learn that trusted leaders have been amassing large fortunes and depositing the proceeds in foreign countries, whilst all the time they have been prosecuting their fellow countrymen for per-

1293
petrating this particular crime. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that there must be thousands of Germans who have been ruined and imprisoned, and I believe in some cases have been executed, while those responsible for that have actually perpetrated the same crime themselves. I really do not think you can have a better object lesson to disillusion the German people. If the Ministry of Information, or whichever Department is responsible—I am not quite clear upon that—is capable of making this information known to the German people by means of leaflets or in any other way, I believe it would be doing an inestimable service. I firmly believe that statements of this character, which I believe to be founded on truth, will have a far greater effect than all the elaborate political leaflets and treatises upon which we are spending our money at the present moment.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MACMILLAN: My Lords, I need scarcely say that the Ministry of Information is fully alive to the propaganda value of this interesting intelligence regarding these German leaders and their fortunes. A leaflet was produced in the Department setting out the statements which have appeared in the American newspapers and incorporating extracts from well-known United States newspapers. These leaflets have been distributed over a large part of Germany from the air and I have made arrangements for a copy to be sent to the noble Lord. Therefore he will realise that what he desires has been done already. The leaflets set out what the American newspapers said upon the subject in full detail. They have been distributed on German soil and I hope the leaflets have reached their destination in many instances. I may add, also, that these allegations against Nazi leaders have been widely reported in American and French as well as British newspapers, and that they have been fully and frequently reported by the B.B.C. in their news bulletins. I am informed that recently in the foreign broadcast the half-hour programme in German was devoted to these charges as detailed by Mr. Knickerbocker, the well-known American newspaper correspondent. I think, therefore, it may be claimed that we have extracted from this matter all its propaganda value.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I desire to thank the noble and learned Lord, the Minister of Information, for his statement and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOLICITORS (DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE) BILL.
4.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee,—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

EDUCATION (EMERGENCY) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Suspension of operation of Sections 1 to 6 of Education Act, 1936.
1.—(1) Sections one to six of the Education Act, 1936 (which provide, subject to certain exceptions, for the raising of the compulsory school age to fifteen, and for matters connected therewith) shall, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of Section sixteen of that Act, be deemed not to have come into operation on the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, but shall come into operation upon such date after the commencement of this Act as the Board of Education may by order determine …
4.48 p.m.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL had given notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "such date after the commencement of this Act as the Board of Education may by order determine" and insert "the first day of September nineteen hundred and forty unless previous to that date the two Houses of Parliament shall have passed Resolutions deferring the ap-

1295
pointed day still further." The noble Lord said: My noble friends and myself were naturally very concerned about the postponement of the raising of the school age, but we understand that the matter has been more or less agreed by representatives of all interests. With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I will not move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Clause I agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a: Amendment (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (EMERGENCY) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a: Amendment (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE WAR SITUATION.
4.52 p.m.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to call attention to the statement on the situation made yesterday by the Leader of the House; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when yesterday I ventured to express the belief that the period of docile and silent acquiescence had ended
1296
and that we might enter on a period of some criticism, I prophesied in a better sense than I knew. We have already had to-day considerable discussion, some of which would appear to pass over into the sphere of the statement which was yesterday made. The fifth statement of progress made yesterday followed rather closely the lines of those that had previously been made. It did not add very greatly to our information, but it was welcomed as presenting rather more frankly than before the mind of His Majesty's Government in relation to the immediate situation. I do not propose to inaugurate any routine criticism of its contents, which were doubtless a careful and balanced view after all the factors had been taken into account, but at the same time I would remind your Lordships' House that the Opposition in this House is under no monkish vow of silence in regard to these matters, and it may perhaps also be a service to His Majesty's Government if I take this opportunity of reminding them that we are not in a state of stupefied adoration of the way in which the war is being conducted. Those matters, however, must be reserved for a more appropriate time, but in some short period some criticisms will have to be made.
The first remark I would like to make concerns Poland. The fact that dismemberment of the soil of Poland has taken place and that it has been divided between the Prussian eagle and the Russian bear, does not mean of necessity the end of the Polish nation. A nation is not a piece of territory merely, but a people, and, so long as a people have one spirit and one purpose, that nation remains. I believe that Greece, in ancient times, was wherever her people found themselves, just as we like to believe that Britain exists in our Dominions and in many other Colonies as well as in these shores which we inhabit. So the Polish spirit is not destroyed, because the principle of nationality is too strong to permit that to take place. Therefore we can welcome the declaration that was made yesterday, that the purpose for which a war was undertaken is not now meaningless in the face of what has taken place.
I would like to make a brief comment upon the question of peace. The statement reminded us that certain peace feelers have been put out, and also told

1297
us that, when the time came to consider them, it would not be possible for us to forget the character of the people with whom we had to deal; the proposals, if ever they came, would be tested by reference to that fact. That seems to be inevitable, but I would like to believe that they will be considered also upon their own merits as apart from the source of origin. We are bound to see to it that, when peace comes, it is a real peace and not merely a truce during which anybody who wished could rearm himself and prepare himself for new acts of aggression. We have no reason, unhappily, to suppose that Nazi Germany has in the least degree changed its mind and its purpose. It remains to-day what for some time it has been, the scourge of the modern world. So in regard to these peace feelers let me say it is so characteristic of the Nazi Germany of to-day that its trumpeted rudeness should even be associated with a feeler after peace negotiations.
Now, either Nazi Germany wants peace or it does not, but if does, it is surely bad psychology to present it with a velvet glove in one hand and a loaded pistol in the other. If by chance Germany wished to do the right thing and to seek for an honourable peace, she is almost certain to choose an offensive way of doing it. Germany has lots of brains—nobody doubts that—but she has no understanding, and Germans cannot comprehend why other nations distrust them. But it is because they appear to us, at any rate, to be the proud defenders of a new philosophy which enables them to believe that whatever will serve Germany is right in itself. I say that we have to be careful in dealing with this matter, for a return to the status quo would not be a return to peace. We do not want to continue to live under that strain and apprehension under which we have been living during the last year. So I would beg the real Germany to speak, the kindly, peace-loving men and women whom many of us have known and whose friendship we have enjoyed. Let the world hear their voice in this matter and not merely the heel-clicking voice of the persons who at present oppress the German people themselves. Having said that, I want to say on my own behalf that I hope our Government will never refuse to listen to what looks like a real proposal for the restoration of peace in the world, taking care only that
1298
it is a real and not a false peace when it comes.
The only other thing I would detain your Lordships to say would be in regard to the Home Front. I will not to-day discuss the "Ministry of Irritation," because that has already been done adequately. I should like, however, to say that I think there is a field of activity at the head of that organisation which is of the very highest importance. "Propaganda," as the noble and learned Lord reminded us, is an unsuitable word, but we have to make the world understand that we are not merely making war for war's sake, or merely to suppress something that we think is a danger to the world. We want our propaganda to say something about the abiding values of our British civilisation. We are fighting, it is true, to resist aggression, but we are also fighting to relieve men's hearts of the haunting fear that their sons are to be brought up to be merely munition power, to be used and sacrificed to defend the world against organised evil. We want to show that, in addition to being a nation of shopkeepers, we are also a nation of pathfinders of the way to a durable peace for all men and for all nations.
I will not go into the details of such matters of foreign policy as were indicated in the statement made yesterday. I am not a specialist in that field and I am afraid to enter upon it. I do permit myself, however, the liberty of saying that in my judgment our attitude to and our relationship with Sweden, Norway and the other Scandinavian countries are of first-class importance, not only because of our long and friendly relationships with them but also because of our high regard for their civilisation and our desire to be on good terms with them. I think, therefore, that we must increasingly see that they are not the neglected victims in a quarrel which is not, at any rate immediately, their own.
The final subject I will mention is India. I am very glad to note that the Viceroy has seen the Congress leaders, and I have some hope that, by conference and understanding, difficulties there may be lessened. As far as I understand the Indian mind it is very desirous to help in the fight for freedom and for democracy, but it wants to feel that it is itself a democratic partner in the enterprise. The con-

1299
tribution that India made in the last war is known to your Lordships: it was of the greatest value, and we ought to see to it that no false pride on our part prevents India from making a contribution of equal value at the present time. I beg to move.
5.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will agree with Lord Snell that it will be useful if from time to time this House discusses the great issues of these days and does not limit itself, as hitherto, merely to brief acknowledgments of the statements made periodically by His Majesty's Government. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that Lord Snell himself to-day has initiated such discussion with his accustomed clarity, eloquence and force. Many of us will remember the well-known lines in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera:
"The House of Lords throughout the war
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well."
In this war I trust that the House of Lords will not be limited to that function but will be able to contribute in some degree both to the expression of public opinion and perhaps sometimes to its guidance.
The general course of this country and Empire has been set, and it has been set with almost universal national agreement. The declaration of the Government yesterday shows that the policy is unchanged. Had it been otherwise, had the statement of yesterday been of a different character, I am sure that many of your Lordships would have been prompt to speak their minds. As it is, the discussion may perhaps be brief and limited. For my own part I desire, so far as international affairs are concerned, to refer only to some of the factors that have lately arisen. Without doubt the most important of them is the anxiety that is felt owing to the uncertainty of the attitude of Russia. I do not know whether it would be possible for the Foreign Secretary to say anything on what all of us must recognise to be a difficult and delicate matter. Hitherto, however, the Soviets have declared their neutrality, and it seems to the general public that there need be no reason to assume that that policy will change. The important point is that His Majesty's Government declared in their statement of
1300
yesterday that, whether Russia does or does not change her policy, Britain and France will not depart from theirs but will pursue their declared purpose to the end.
Consequent upon the recent course of action of Russia, there has been some concern on account of the negotiations that have taken place between Turkey and the Soviets. I trust, however, that the people of this country will view those negotiations with understanding. Turkey, from her geographical situation, has great interests in the Black Sea and in Asia which would lead her to cultivate friendship with the Soviets, as she has done in recent years; while at the same time she has great interests in the Mediterranean which would lead her to value the good will and, if necessary, the assistance of Britain and France. It should be, it would seem to many, our task to help the Turkish Government to avoid any clash between those two real interests, which might at times appear to be somewhat incompatible. We may recognise that Turkey is right in her own interests to cultivate friendship with all her neighbours, and we need not see unfriendliness to ourselves if she seeks to preserve those friendships while maintaining her engagements with France and with Britain.
As to the division of Poland that has lately been proclaimed by Germany and Russia, we may well feel confident that that will not stand. That matter is not to be decided by those two Powers at the present time; the Peace Conference at the end of the war will deal with it. We may all of us recollect how in March, 1918, there was another treaty between Germany and Russia, signed after long negotiations at Brest-Litovsk, followed by a treaty on similar lines between Germany and Rumania—both of them very advantageous to a triumphant Germany; but events decided otherwise.
One thing stands out quite clearly in the existing situation. There is one prospect which is utterly intolerable, and it is this. When the war is ended, whether it be late or soon, when the conference has been held and terms of peace have been agreed, and the smoke has cleared away, it would be intolerable if one fact were to remain in the eyes of the world and in the face of history—namely, that Herr Hitler should be found once more to have achieved by violence all, and more

1301
than all, that he had set out to obtain, that the Czech people had not been redeemed and that the Poles had been added as new victims, and that, by another resounding triumph, the Nazi régime had been fastened yet more firmly upon the necks of the German people and of Europe. That that should be the net result is a prospect not to be borne. That that should be the legacy which this generation of ours should leave to posterity, is a thought that would be unendurable. All of us, of course, would rejoice if the war could be ended in a month, but if the ending was such as to leave the situation no better than before, but worse, with the peoples subjected to the continuous strains that have marked the last few years, with international treaties made more worthless even than before, and with further wars ever impending, then the respite could be bought at far too high a price. I believe that the British nation, with a sound instinct, and the French nation as well, feel that now we are in it we must go on and finish it.
These observations, I gather, meet with a considerable measure of approval from your Lordships. Perhaps what I have to say next, turning to questions of domestic affairs, may not quite be equally approved. A Chinese sage said of one of his disciples who used to accompany him in his wanderings, "So-and-so gives me no assistance at all; he admires immensely everything that I say." Well, we on these Benches are not debarred in that way from rendering assistance to His Majesty's Government. In the first place, I think that the country is disappointed with respect to the composition of the War Cabinet. That view has been expressed already this afternoon by the noble Viscounts, Lord Astor and Lord Elibank. Everyone welcomes a smaller War Cabinet, but neither the lines on which it has been constituted—its present numbers—nor its personnel really satisfy the wishes of the nation. I do not wish to pursue that further, because it would raise questions of too great delicacy. But one point stands out very clearly—that the present War Cabinet is weak on the financial and economic side. One does not see in that body a real grasp of all the great questions of that order on which the success of this contest will ultimately in very large measure depend. Many of your Lordships will, no doubt, have seen
1302
in The Times yesterday a most able article by Sir William Beveridge, dealing with these matters. He makes there many cogent criticisms and presents practical proposals, with which I would express my humble agreement, and which I trust will receive the close attention of the Government.
The second ground on which the Government are subject to general criticism, I think, has been the delay in setting up the Ministry of Supply. Again and again in recent years many members of your Lordships' House—some of those with the closest knowledge of the questions at issue—have urged upon the Government the immediate necessity of establishing such a Ministry, but until recently we had no more than the famous formula uttered by the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland—"sooner or later, perhaps." When the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, spoke in this House after the September crisis last year, he said: "I would mobilise our industries to-morrow." Many wondered why they have not been mobilised before, but they have not been mobilised yet in all their fullness. The Ministry of Supply has very limited functions. It is perhaps not through its own fault, but it has not yet won the confidence of the nation. It has not been able, perhaps it has not got the power, to grasp the whole situation comprehensively, that is to say, the mobilisation of all the industry of Britain for the war effort and the proper planning of its output.
Furthermore, still dealing with the economic side, the Commercial War Risks Insurance Scheme was received with general disapproval by the commercial community, but still it has not been changed in accordance with their desires. With regard to war damage compensation, the public are left altogether at a loss to know what action will be taken by the Government to carry out their declared policy of relieving the individual who suffers from any damage to his house or property resulting from war action, instead of leaving him to bear the whole burden of what should be a communal charge. As long ago as January 31 the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that this was a matter which the Government ought to take up, that it was one which required legislation, and that legislation should be introduced as

1303
soon as possible. That was at the end of January, and still no steps have been taken. That this matter should not have been pressed on with before the war is cause for blame for the Government as a whole, and for the Treasury in particular.
With regard to the Ministry of Information, that has been so fully discussed this afternoon that it is unnecessary to add a further word. The Government have recognised that the scheme prepared beforehand has proved completely unsuitable, and they have now abandoned it. But it is necessary to urge upon His Majesty's Government—a view that has already been expressed by some noble Lords this afternoon—that adequate steps have not been taken to maintain the tone of the nation. The war drags slowly, perhaps inevitably. On land, on the Western Front, it has taken the tedious form of siege warfare. On the seas it is a matter of patrols and skirmishes. In the air, hitherto, it has been the same. These methods of warfare demand magnificent qualities from the individuals engaged, and have given opportunities for the display of heroism which must command the admiration of everyone, but to the public at large the war seems going slowly, and apparently the end can only be found, unless there are some striking changes in one direction or another, in the gradual process of the economic exhaustion of Germany.
In 1914, before conscription was introduced, when we depended on voluntary recruitment, it was necessary for the Government and for all the leaders of Parties to go down to the people and hold great meetings in all the centres of population in order to explain the purposes of the war, to stimulate and maintain enthusiasm, and to recruit the great armies of millions that were then being raised. Now that is not necessary in the same way. The noble Lord, Lord Macmillan, speaking a little while ago, said it was proposed to mobilise all the means of publicity in the country, and he mentioned first the platform. Possibly some member of the Government may be able to tell us to what extent and in what way it is proposed to do that.
Now there is a method that did not exist 25 years ago—broadcasting—which enables the leaders of the people to speak
1304
directly to every household, and there one cannot but endorse the complaints that have been made this afternoon by Lord Strabolgi, Lord Astor, and the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Birdwood, that the broadcasting programmes of the B.B.C. are inadequate to the times and to the promotion of the strenuous effort which is required from the nation. They are uninspired and uninspiring. As Meredith said, "England is a muffled drum." That is characteristic of the broadcasting of to-day. That is why the whole people welcomed with so much enthusiasm the spirited and resonant speeches in Parliament and on the wireless of Mr. Winston Churchill. Lord Macmillan told us to-day that he had to devote himself hitherto to reforming the structure of his Ministry, and that it is only now that the Ministry is able to get on with its real work of disseminating information and carrying on legitimate propaganda. It is a sad thing that, during this critical month, time should have been wasted and, according to the Minister of Information himself, the Ministry should have been immobilised for its real purpose by the initial defects in its own constitution.
There are many suggestions that might be made by members of this House and members of the other House which it is not expedient to make in open session. For my own part I desire to support the proposal which was initiated by the leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, and has been supported here by Lord Ponsonby and Lord Noel-Buxton already, that there should be Secret Sessions of Parliament, if not now, then at no distant future. Members cannot criticise or comment freely on certain matters without doing harm. An example may be found in Mr. Lloyd George's speech yesterday—a speech which, if made at this juncture, should have been made in Secret Session, and which appears to many to have been untimely. That is my view; others may think differently. During the last war there were Secret Sessions which I well remember, and it is true that they caused some disappointment among members of Parliament, because it was anticipated that the Government would be able to give information about the strategic situation and the state of national preparedness which, as a matter of fact, Ministers could not give. It would no

1305
doubt be the same to-day. If there is even a distant risk of information on any strategic or military matter leaking out and reaching the ears of General Staffs who are eagerly listening for every whisper, however distant that risk may be, it cannot be faced, and no Government charged with these great matters could face the danger of a breach of secrecy.
But Ministers can give a great deal of information about home conditions which it might not be expedient to publish to the world, and it is not only a question of what the Government can tell members, but also a question of what members can tell the Government. It is very necessary that Ministers should be kept in touch with the movement of public opinion, particularly in days like these, when there are no by-elections to be held except what may be called freak elections such as the one pending in Scotland. It is true that it would hinder the successful conduct of the war if certain things were said in public, but it is also true that it may hinder the successful conduct of the war if these things are not said at all. They cart be said much more effectively in Parliament than privately by members to individual Ministers. It is, of course, a matter on which the House of Commons should take the initiative, but if Secret Sessions are held there as they were during the last war, no doubt here also they will take place as happened on that occasion.
All these are comparatively minor points. After a month of war, the important salient fact is that the substantial unity of the nation is unshaken, and we all stand behind the Government to secure the successful waging of the war. We all see clearly that the essence of the matter is this. Czecho-Slovakia and Poland are only symptoms. There is a deep-seated disease in the centre of Europe, and it is a disease of the mind. This is a war of ideas. Ideas determine action. As a German philospher said, "Ideas have hands and feet." They strike, they march, whether for good or for ill; and a nation which allows itself to fall subject to men who take a cynical view of life and of politics, who have no religion, who are not aware that such a thing as international morality exists, such a nation brings on itself certain disaster and on its neighbours great suffering. The Germans might have learned better from
1306
the uniform teaching of all history. They have not done so. They have to learn afresh in the school of hard experience. That seems to me the essence of the matter.
5.29 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships for a few moments on this subject because I happen to have rather more contacts than I expect have been possible for many of your Lordships with two groups of people who, as it seems to me, are of peculiar importance in this connection. The first is the great mass of our young people so far as these are represented by students in universities with whom I have had the good fortune to have a great deal to do for many years. There is something very marked in the outlook that is most common among youths, no doubt only finding expression among the more thoughtful and the more articulate, but those are the members of this group who for the same reason exercise chief influence among their fellows.
Some time back a good deal of dismay was caused by the passing of a resolution in the Oxford Union to the effect "that this House would on no account fight for King and country." If I mention the history of that resolution it will illustrate what I mean. The President of the Union of that day at first put down a motion "that in the opinion of this House armed force should be subject to international control." He was unable to secure any effective opposition to that motion at that date. He then went gradually to work, and later brought up the resolution which gave so much offence when it was published, but those who voted for the resolution, so far as they were doing so in anything other than undergraduate high spirits and for the sake of shocking their parents, did so because, although they were not against the wording of what the President at first put down, they had an aspiration after an order of things in which the perpetual wars of nations might be brought to an end. Now that is still an exceedingly prevailing movement among these young people.
I am perfectly certain that there are numbers of them serving their country at this time in the Forces with pure conviction who do so because of the hope in their hearts that the issue of this war is going to be something much more than

1307
the small negative result of putting an end to the recent series of German aggressions. There is a spirit of real dedication among them. And it is not only dedication to their country; it is much more than that; it is a dedication inspired by the thought that their country is to be dedicated to the service of something beyond itself. What they fear may be put in this way. They fear a repetition of 1914 to 1918, followed by a repetition of 1919 to 1939, and above all a repetition of 1939 itself. It would be worth a very great deal both for their confidence and consequently also for the energy of their services if they could have an assurance that some of the mistakes made in 1919 are really fully recognised and that there is no danger of a repetition. If we must go through 1914 to 1918 again let us at least not go through 1919 to 1939 again.
Now it has been clearly laid down as part of the aim of our nation in this war that we should destroy Hitlerism, and I imagine that means that on no account would peace be made with Herr Hitler Dr with a Government representing his ideas. We must regard this worship of violence characteristic of that Government as not merely incidental to the position in which it has found itself from time to time, but as inherent in its philosophy of life and of statesmanship. From the horrible Beuthen telegram of 1932, a year before the Nazi revolution, right down to the last episode the story is the same within Germany and without. And if I may for a moment refer to a subject that has engaged your Lordships' attention earlier—namely, the leaflets we are scattering in Germany—they would seem to me in many cases to have been occupied with the theme that we cannot do with Herr Hitler, but it is much more eloquent to rub in why they cannot decently do with him. Similarly, and if there is to be another calendar, may I suggest it be a calendar of Hitler's internal crimes rather than of his crimes towards other nations?
Now is there any way by which it is possible to give the kind of confidence of which I spoke? Naturally I can only offer suggestions as one who does not know in the way in which members of the Government know the actual factors of the situation, but I think one may put the question broadly in this way. Is our analogue going to be Paris or Vienna?
1308
Shall we go more closely by the procedure adopted at the end of the last war or that adopted at the end of the Napoleonic war, which after all did inaugurate a very long period of European peace? There is a factor in this situation which encourages the adoption of the analogy of Vienna—namely, that we are quite specifically fighting an evil Government and the philosophy behind it. In the war against Napoleon we were fighting the French Revolution as it came to be embodied in him, and our statesmen were able to take the view that since the Bourbon Dynasty had been restored and we had been in many ways fighting for the sake of the Bourbon Dynasty there were no enemies left and we were all friends together and could make peace. Accordingly I do not believe that such firm realists as Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington would have taken that line if they had not also believed it to be good for the future of Europe, and that the introduction of the Legitimists was much more an excuse for a policy which they would anyhow have adopted than the real cause of their action.
But we have much the same excuse here. Supposing it should become true that the German people would throw off the present Government and introduce something much more fully representative of the longer traditions of Germany, stretching back not only to Bismarck but also beyond him, we should have a ground for saying that here is a nation with which we can enter into negotiations not as conquerors over a vanquished foe but as colleagues in the system of Europe. In other words we could say that, while there can be no peace between this country and the present German Government, between this country and a Germany which has taken to itself a Government of another hue and another tradition there should be a freely negotiated peace and not in any sense an imposed one. That, I believe, would bring great confidence to the younger people in our country.
That brings me to the other special contact which I have had and to which I attach very great importance, though I think it indicates a similar line of action. I have had the opportunity in these last years of rather frequent intercourse with leaders of the German churches; more particularly I remember a most moving conversation with Dr.

1309
Zoellner, that really great Christian, who endeavoured near the beginning of the Nazi movement to harmonise the various traditions of German churchmanship with the demands of the new State, and of course completely failed and died of a broken heart through his failure. I remember his saying in 1934 that they had every reason to be grateful to Hitler who had made the German nation again a reality, that they had in those past years lost their sense of unity, that they were no longer a people, but that now they were once more a German people. Only, he said, the way in which it had been done filled one with anxiety for what was going to be the result of it.
Well, there are men like that—I will not mention any who are living, mention of names is dangerous—who exercise a great influence and it is known that their influence happens to be particularly strong in the old German Army, who are dismayed and horrified at the crimes with which the record of the Nazi Government is stained. If they could have the assurance that, supposing that Government is overthrown, there is in store for the German people a settlement not only free from vindictiveness but satisfying to the pride of a great nation, I believe that we should have set in motion forces that would secure that result and bring about the downfall of this evil thing in Germany through the action of the German people themselves. It might come quickly. More probably it would take longer, but it is surely the most desirable result to which we can turn.
Therefore, while welcoming all that was said on the subject of our purpose in the war in the statement to which reference is made in the Motion, I am asking whether the Government will consider supplementing that by some assurance of the kind for which I have asked for the future—that while there can be no peace with Hitler, there can be, and we desire there should be, peace with Germany honourable to that great people, and, above all, that in doing this we should pave the way for a new and positive organisation of peace in Europe so that our young men, in all that they are called upon both to endure and to inflict, should have the inspiration of knowing that they are not only serving their country, that they are not only extirpating a menace from the
1310
life of Europe, but that they are in a real sense looking to a free future, saving civilisation.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I have a few things to say and I will say them as briefly as I can. May I begin by saying that I find myself in great sympathy with the suggestions made, I think yesterday by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, and approved today by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I believe by some other noble Lords who have spoken, that there should be at some time or another a Secret Session of your Lordships' House? The Government say "We could not say much more in a Secret Session than we can in open session because the things we cannot say are military secrets and we cannot say them in the House of Lords even in Secret Session." I can well understand that, but the House of Lords does contain a number of people who have some experience in foreign affairs and a number of others who have given a great deal of attention to them. I think that on certain questions, for instance as to what is to happen at the end of the war, a free discussion by those members of your Lordships' House might be of value to the Government and would, at any rate, be some satisfaction to some members of your Lordships' House who would like to hear these things expressed in a way in which they cannot be expressed in a Public Session. I hope the Government will consider that aspect of the matter because I really do believe that something might be gained by a Secret Session of that kind.
I want to say a word to-day which is difficult to say because one feels that a chance observation might easily do harm, and may not very probably do any good. Still I feel that I ought to say it. We have been told through the usual channels of information, that the German Government are probably, though not certainly, about to issue some kind of proclamation of the terms on which they would make peace. The Government have said, very properly and rightly, that any statement of that kind would of course be carefully considered. They have also said, I think very properly and rightly, that if it is to take any such form as has been indicated in the Press—namely, a recognition of

1311
the German conquest of Poland—it is quite impossible for us or our Allies to look at it. I find myself in complete agreement with the Government about that, and with a great deal which my noble friend Viscount Samuel said on that topic. But I do not feel quite sure whether that is enough, whether it is right simply for us to say to any such proposal, "No, we will not have that" and no more. I am afraid that would be an unfortunate result.
I have seen letters from various countries, from Norway and from the United States, and although I have not the same means of information as the most reverend Prelate about the feelings of the young, yet I have had information which entirely confirms everything that he said. There is anxiety to know exactly what it is that we are fighting for, what it is we hope to gain, what it is we hope to achieve by these tremendous sacrifices which we are very rightly and very willingly making at this moment. I cannot help feeling that it will be a great pity if we receive whatever statements are made by our enemies with a simple negative and without any alternative proposals of our own. I do not know whether I am right about that, but that is the feeling I have, and I cannot help feeling that if we lose that chance we might do a great deal to discourage perhaps some of our most valued supporters in this country, perhaps some people in allied countries, and I feel sure a good many people in neutral countries. I think we should miss a great opportunity for demonstrating to the German people, so far as we can get it over to them, that what we are demanding is just as much in the interests of the German people properly considered as it is in the interests of any other people in the world. I quite recognise, of course, the extreme difficulty of going into detail in such a matter as that and the extreme care which would have to be displayed in any statement on the subject, but I cannot help thinking there are some general propositions which we might put forward which would help in this matter.
It is said that we must fight, and of course I agree—in a sense completely agree—to destroy Hitler and Hitlerism. Well, let us be a little careful about that way of putting it. Of course we want to
1312
destroy, and prevent the possibility of the renewal of, the external policy with which the present Nazi Government is identified. But do not let us put it too much as a destruction of one man and his system. I cannot help feeling that we carry that too far. I hope I shall not be thought as in any sense an apologist for Herr Hitler. It is no use indulging in violent invective, but if there is any subject on which I am tempted to do so it is on the character and achievements of that man. But all the same it is not only him—and that is the point that I think we must realise—it is not only him whom we are fighting. We are fighting the ideas which he represents. It is essential that we should recognise that I will not attempt to go back into history beyond what I have lived through myself, but I can remember something of foreign affairs for upwards of half a century. There has always been in Prussian policy this note that Germany stands before all—not only stands before all in a sense that many patriots would say of their country—namely, stands before all private interests—but stands in the place of all morality and all principles; that to serve Germany is a sufficient excuse for almost any villainy that can be contemplated. That is putting it very strongly, but just look back.
We complain, and rightly complain, of the impossibility of trusting the present German Government. But let us look back. I remember—we all know—the well-known phrase of Dr. Johnson about his enemy the Scots—a very unfair and even libellous statement—in which he said that a Scotsman would need to be a very stern moralist to prefer truth to Scotland. That is a gross libel, no doubt, on the Scots, but I am not sure that if you put "German" instead of "Scotsman" it is not literally true. Look at these men; Bismarck, William II, Bülow, Bethmann-Hollweg, Ludendorff, as well as Hitler. There is not one of them who would not have thought it perfectly legitimate to say any falsehood in the world if he thought it would serve his country. That is a serious and very important fact that we have got to recognise. Of course, I know perfectly well that the most reverend Prelate is absolutely right in saying that there is another Germany which has many splendid men in it, men whom we should all delight to honour. Of course there is,

1313
and it is a great misfortune, as I have heard Germans themselves say, how often it has happened to their country to be represented by people who are really quite unworthy of the confidence of their country.
But still, there it is at the time; we have got to face that; and though I most heartily and entirely agree with the most reverend Prelate, when he said that we must have a freely-negotiated peace, that we must avoid the kind of mistakes that were made at Versailles—I believe that is absolutely true—I believe most firmly that we must recognise, in any terms of peace that we make, that all nations have equal rights and must be treated with equal fairness. But when all that is said and done, we have got also to recognise—and this is the fact that I do beg the Government to bear in mind—that we must do something effective to put an end altogether to these renewed aggressions which are plunging the world into war, as they have plunged the world again this time into war. We must do something to prevent them. I am quite sure, if I may say so to the most reverend Prelate, that that is what his young friends want more than anything. They want some guarantee that at the end of this war we are going to do something to put international affairs on a sound basis, so that they need not fear constant reiteration of these horrible events.
There are many things that might be suggested, but I will not trouble your Lordships with suggestions at this point. I think we have got to make some constructive suggestion. I think also we have got to make it quite clear that we entered into this war with no desire for territory or trade or anything of the kind. We entered into this war, as the noble Lord, Lord Macmillan, very truly said, on ideological grounds, and we did well to do so. We have nothing to gain by territorial arrangements with Germany; we have nothing to gain by destroying Germany's trade; on the contrary, whatever differences there may be on economic questions, I think all are now agreed that the prosperity of each country is a help to the prosperity of all. For those reasons I cannot help feeling that we have a great opportunity, in answer to whatever is to be put forward from Berlin, for giving hope to all these people who are looking to us to see what we really are fighting for and whether they can
1314
genuinely and hopefully support us; and I do hope the Government will have the courage not to miss that great opportunity.
5.58 p.m.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I was very anxious that the debate on the statement made yesterday would allow members of your Lordships' House to speak very fully and frankly, and that was why I asked that there might be a Secret Session. I think that the Government will see the value of a Secret Session as time goes on, and I would suggest that they should make it not on occasions only, so as to excite comment outside, but should make it the normal procedure after they make their weekly statement. There are many members of your Lordships' House who are very independent; in fact I would venture to say that this House is still one of the most independent institutions that exist just now, because I think the Press is dragooned and the House of Commons, by very stringent Party rules, is largely dragooned, but in your Lordships' House there are many who have independent views which, if contributed, would be valuable for the Government to hear; but I think there are many also who are so diffident that they will not speak openly in an open Session.
I regard the statement made yesterday as marking a very crucial moment in the very difficult situation which exists in the world to-day, and I am glad of this opportunity to speak. I will try to be judicious and reticent; if I am not, it is the fault of the Government for not giving me a Secret Session. But I certainly think that there are things to say now which, so far, in the speeches I have heard, have not been said. The speech I favoured the most was that delivered by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. But I think the other two or three speeches showed a tendency to continue almost verbatim in the lines laid down during the last war. I want to get away from that altogether. I do not speak as any sort of supporter of the Nazi régime, of the outrages and persecutions that have taken place inside Germany, or of its methods of diplomacy. We are dealing with a situation, however, which necessitates a very careful retention of our sense of proportion, and I think the problem before us can be put in a very simple way: can we depend on Hitler's

1315
word for peace, and if not, is it right to take the opportunity of continuing the war with the question before us, can we secure a just peace by fighting to the end?
The most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York seems to be hopeful that, while we made mistakes in the last war and since peace was declared, this time we are going to correct them. I see no prospect of that at all. The same cries are going on: the "knock-out blow," which seems to be advocated by my noble friend Lord Samuel; and the same idea that by a great victory we are going to attain permanent peace. This is not going to be a war to end war, any more than the previous one was, and it is an absolute illusion to suppose that it can be. The factor that has altered the situation very much now is Russian diplomacy. Not many weeks ago I ventured to say in this House to the Government that you have to get up very early in order to know what the Russians are after, and that it was not our habit to do that. I must say that I think they are very good diplomatists. They do not get on the high horse and talk about defending civilisation. That is an outrageous phrase for us to use; no wonder it sets people's backs up. They do not do that sort of thing. Stalin very seldom talks, even; he just goes and does the thing he wants to and leaves us all guessing. By that means the situation is changed; the situation is entirely different.
The First Lord of the Admiralty in his broadcast said that the expansion of Germany to the East has now been stopped. Then what are we going on fighting for? Do His Majesty's Government think that the expansion of Germany towards the, East has been stopped by Russia, and if not, can they not restrain—I have advocated this before—the First Lord of the Admiralty? Can they somehow arrange that he does not speak for the Government but he speaks for the Admiralty? He speaks very well indeed and everybody listens to him with great attention, and when he speaks for the Admiralty everybody likes to hear put in such graphic terms the splendid services of the Navy. But when he goes and talks policy, he must either be representing His Majesty's Government or else he ought not to say what he does.
1316
I do not think we can take it for certain that Russian diplomacy means that. I do not know what it means; I will not venture to guess, and I am sure it gives the Foreign Secretary many sleepless nights. But I should like to say a word about our pledge to Poland. I objected to that very much in this House on more than one occasion. I think it was really disastrous that we should have made a pledge to a Central European State when we knew perfectly well that from a military point of view we could not implement it. The poor, unfortunate Polish people, whatever their Government may have thought, were firmly under the impression that by some miracle British forces, either in the air or on land, were going to come to help them. Might I ask the Foreign Secretary to ask the Prime Minister to remember what he said on March 17 at Birmingham? It is only a small paragraph and I am not going to quote it. It begins "Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany," and in the subsequent lines of the speech, if you substitute the word "Poland" for "Czecho-Slovakia," what the Prime Minister said was absolutely, literally and permanently true.
There is a tendency—and I agree with my noble friend below me here—which always arises in every war, to personify the nation; and there is a greater tendency to do it now because the chief culprit is a dictator. We cannot come to terms with any of the chief rulers of Germany. We could not with Frederick the Great, we could not with Bismarck, we could not with the Kaiser, and we cannot with Hitler. But when we insist that the Germans should change their Government before we can come to terms with them, there I think we are making a very great mistake. If any foreign country asked us to change our Government at their dictation, I should defend even the present Government rather than acquiesce. No, you cannot ask the Germans at your dictation to change the particular form of government which they take; that is the business of the German people themselves, and if left to themselves they will deal with the dictator as dictators have been dealt with before. If you are going to get rid of Herr Hitler, do you want Ribbentrop? I would sooner have Hitler. If you do not want either of them, are

1317
you quite sure you are not going to get a Communist Government there? It is well within the bounds of probability. These highfalutin sentences that come in the perorations of Ministers had really better be dropped. Let us have something simple as a war aim that the man in the street can understand. And may I say in passing that the great enthusiasm that there is supposed to be for the war on this occasion is non-existent?
I want the Government to take into account the price of the continuance of the war. We say we have no quarrel with the German people, but we are going to blockade Germany; that means the slow starvation of German children so that they will be emasculated for very many years to come, a form of torture which is almost the worst there can be in a war. We have to look forward, as the Government appear to be doing, to three years with the appalling casualties that must take place owing to modern engines of war. We have not to take into account—and this I would stress very much—the rebuilding and carving-up of Central Europe in a satisfactory and permanent way. We cannot do that, nobody is going to do that. That is an insoluble problem: there are races, nationalities, civilisations that have changed hands and changed frontiers periodically for centuries past. Do not let us suppose for a moment that it is a possible endeavour on our part to tidy up that part of the world in such a way as to please these races and to satisfy the big nations round them.
But nearer home do let us remember that we have some responsibility for our long-standing friends, who are of a very high civilisation. I am talking of Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway: those are the people that we ought to take into account. Their defence is our business. In a war, when it rages, they are ground and powdered almost between two heavy millstones. Their trade is dislocated, their people are very often starved, their ships are sunk, and they suffer because they are small in the quarrels, in which they have no part, between the great Powers. Those are people to be taken into account—the neutrals, our Allies and our fellow countrymen. And do not let us for a moment suggest that there is any possibility of a settlement which can be worth a million English lives—young men, the
1318
greatest treasure we have got. Nothing can justify that, because we know, and it is no good pretending we do not, that we cannot settle the matter by fighting. Defend civilisation by the methods of barbarism? It is not possible. Defend civilisation by starving children and by massacring men on both sides by the million? Of course not.
I agree with those who firmly believe that our civilisation to-day is very inferior to what it was before 1914 in consequence of the war. Do let us think of the future of our own country first, of our own people, of the building up of our own ideas, our own institutions, that ought to be an example to the world, instead of bursting into this turmoil, this nightmare, which is going to throw the world into darkness for we do not know how many months or years, with no certainty that the result is going to be of any benefit to anyone, but with the practical certainty that if we are victorious, as most probably we shall be, a victorious peace is never a just peace. President Wilson said in the last war that you must have a peace by negotiation, a peace that can really be settled between peoples. I am so vividly reminded, by phrases I have heard to-day and am continually hearing and seeing in the Press, of 1914. I was among a small band in the House of Commons which stood up and tried for peace. We were laughed at and derided, but in wars it is the minorities that are generally right. We asked for peace by negotiation because we knew that that way you would not get a vindictive peace. And the same thing is going on now.
Finally, let me just put this most especially to my noble freind the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Do not let the idea spread that this, like an earthquake or a volcano, is something that is beyond the control of man. It is not. It is in the hands of our Government as well as in the hands of Herr Hitler. Do not let us out of a desire to score off and to down an individual, a very extraordinary individual, a very powerful individual, a very cruel individual, a man whom it is almost impossible to deal with—do not let us allow that to get into the public mind as a reason for the massacre of our fellow countrymen, our youth, and many thousands in Europe. Let us keep our sense of proportion. The agonies and the

1319
terrible distress, the persecutions and the cruelty which go on in Germany—well, we feel for the Germans who have to endure them, but it is their business to alter it. They can alter that. They cannot at present, because they are subjugated by this extraordinary personality. But they are going to join with him if we continue to fight him. If we can see an opportunity for reason, and not summarily reject a plan that is conceivable for the cessation of this terrible nightmare, I earnestly hope and press my noble friend that he and the Prime Minister will make every effort to take it.
6.15 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before the Foreign Secretary replies, I desire to make an appeal to your Lordships and to ask the Foreign Secretary to give me an assurance. My appeal is this. To (very member of your Lordships' House and to those outside, in all that we say about our war aims, what terms we desire to impose, what terms we will accept, what are our ideals, what we are determined to do, either to fight to the bitter end or to negotiate, I would implore everyone to remember, speaking now as a soldier and a realist, that there are two of us in this great business—ourselves and France. I have listened to every word of this debate. I listened to the debate in another place yesterday, but although I did not intend, in what I had planned to say to your Lordships, to say a word about the remarks of Mr. Lloyd George, I cannot allow to pass the words of my noble friend Lord Samuel with whom I nearly always agree. The speech which Mr. Lloyd George made seemed to me entirely reasonable, for he was pleading, as I now appeal, but on a different ground, that we should not make hasty decisions, that we should not hastily reject any proposals which may come. My reason is because of France. His was the neutral countries. In any case, it seemed to me that his speech was timely and, as always, fearless, and I do not regret it. But for him, without a doubt we should be now the vassals of Germany. Such a man is not likely to preach surrender to his country. I salute him now and always, whatever I may think and however much I may have quarrelled with him in domestic affairs, as the saviour of his country, as he may be again. That is just by the way, but
1320
I and my noble friend on my left (Viscount Samuel) totally disagree.
I have consulted many people, members of this House and all sorts of people high and low outside, who do not seem to understand that in this joint war France is in a most peculiar position, due no doubt to the pressure of the Navy and those who direct it. We must not forget the Leader of the House who was First Lord of the Admiralty. Due to the Navy we have won the war at sea so far, and under the direction of the noble Lord's vigorous successor let us hope and believe that we shall continue to be secure at sea. But that brings me to the point of where France comes in. We have this great natural barrier, about which Marshal Foch never ceased to dilate to me, saying: "You fortunate people in your island! You can indulge in all your high-flown sentiments with security. You have the Channel and your Fleet to defeat all corners." As I listened to more than one speech made, I was reminded of the old fable, which I commend to anyone who talks in this way about what we will and will not do, without reference to the true military situation. One creature is supposed to have said to another, "Don't forget that what is fun for you may be death for me." Here we are, secure in our island, while France, though we will vigorously support her, is exposed to that most terrible danger, land invasion.
Some people seem to think that air power has resulted in our being no longer an island, that therefore we are all in the same boat, and that it is not our bounden duty to consult France even more than we should naturally do. But that is not so. I spent part of this morning at the Imperial War Museum going through the records of what happened at the end of the last war, when the number of all these engines of destruction, including aeroplanes, oddly enough, was not very different from what it is to-day. I find that in one day on the Western Front, where France is now fighting our battles as well as her own, the British Army alone dropped 25,000 tons of explosives on the enemy, and in the nineteen days before the gigantic quantity of 250,000 tons of explosives was dropped upon the enemy. What can possibly happen to this country if by some frightful folly of mankind we indulge in a war of reprisals? Everyone knows the approximate total

1321
number of aeroplanes that can possibly reach these shores. Everyone knows approximately how much they can carry. How could it conceivably happen that we should suffer as the land Power would suffer-250,000 tons in a comparatively few days? Such a thing could not happen if people were to go on building aeroplanes from now on for 100 years. The force of gravity for one thing is an element, but, above all, let us not forget that it is getting easier and easier to intercept the projectile which is carried by air, so much so that it is probable, and indeed certain, that the total number of projectiles which may be sent here will be intercepted in an increasing ratio, so that by common consent our sufferings would be less and less. Nobody has yet found a way to intercept a shell in the air; once it leaves the gun, nobody can intercept it until it crashes to earth once more.
I make this point because it is so grossly unfair to talk as though we, and we alone, were in this plight. It is due to us, with the help of the French Navy, to say that we have made the sea secure, but in so doing we have made ourselves secure. But France, standing there valiantly, as she does now, as her brave Army is doing, a good 12 kilometres inside German territory, stands in grave peril. With our help she will overcome it, I have no doubt, but that it is grave peril we all know. Let us make this resolve, and it is for that reason I rose to ask a question of the Foreign Secretary. We do not give our conscience into the keeping of another nation, but in this hour of great peril to our friends, we will say nothing, we will make no promise, except that we will do our duty, without consulting fully beforehand with our Ally, France. If we fail to do that we shall fail in our duty, and we shall rightly be condemned by history. I appeal to my noble friend to assure the House and the country that we will not make rash promises of any kind without consulting our brave Allies the French, with whom without doubt in this matter, whatever may happen, we will fight with all our might.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I feel almost impertinent getting up in my place in your Lordships' House after all the most talented members of the
1322
House have spoken, but I have got something to say which will not take more than ten minutes. This debate has proceeded on very careful lines, and I have not the slightest intention of overstepping those lines. I want to say with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that he has been very consistent in his opinions, and has the courage of them, and he deserves very great credit for showing that courage in your Lordships' House. But in one remark he made he was a little one-sided. He talked about the slow starvation of German children through our blockade. He forgot to say that the Germans are doing their very best to blockade us in the same way. If it were not for the Royal Navy we might also find ourselves faced with starvation.
The other point I wanted to make was that I notice a very strong opinion in this House in favour of these debates being held. In the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty, your Lordships "relish" these debates on foreign affairs, but I must say I am entirely against the majority of your Lordships in that respect. I think it is a pity we should have these debates. They may do some good, at the same time they may do some harm. There is certainly one good thing that might come out of them, and that is constructive suggestion. I shall take very good care myself to remember that, up to the present, Russia has done nothing against this country or against France. Although she may have done things of which we do not approve, it would be a pity to be anything else than reserved as to what we may say about her.
But when we turn to our enemies, the Nazis, there is no need for restraint. This is a war we shall have to fight to the end. I believe that even war, as the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, said, is preferable to what we have been going through for the last few years of strain and suspense, constant menace and fear. One cannot emphasize too strongly that this horror has been brought about by a group of gangsters with a lust for power, whose word no man can trust. I admit to a lack of foresight or perspicuity, because two or three years ago I said in this House that the Leader of Germany had never broken his word. I realise now that as time goes on I, like others, live and learn.

1323
As this debate is on, I have one suggestion which I do not think can do any harm. This is a fight to a finish. This fight will be won by the use of military force, by economic power, or by revolt from within. The two first methods we are carrying out to the best of our ability. With regard to the chances of upheaval inside Germany, there is no doubt that millions of the German people hate the Nazi régime with its lack of freedom and brutal aggression. They distrust their leaders, and they would overthrow them if they could. The Government are doing very good work, in my humble opinion, in dropping leaflets, but they do not go far enough. I am now going to touch on the same subject as was mentioned by the most reverend Prelate, but on different lines. There are people in Germany who wish to be sure that when the end of this war comes, England will help to settle their difficulties. This is what Germans in Germany, who do not belong to the Nazi Party, are saying now. They say of this country that when an emergency like war arises, we pull ourselves together and meet it, but when the danger is past, we just shrug our shoulders, turn our backs on a despairing Europe, and focus our energies on the far outposts of Empire or on our internal and infernal politics.
They further say that after the last war we gave in to an embittered France by setting our seal to the Treaty of Versailles (which to say the least of it did nothing to lay the foundations of lasting peace) and then, having done that, we left them in the lurch, and they are afraid in Germany that we are going to do that again. I am not saying this myself. That is what they are saying and I have good sources of information. All I remember is that we did give considerable sums of money to Austria and Germany. But in order to lose no chance of shortening this war we should help the Germans to help themselves by some form of encouragement. Your Lordships may think perhaps that this is rather premature, but it is not so. The chances of an internal upheaval in Germany will be greatly increased if the millions who hate and distrust the Nazis could be assured that when the war is over we shall make peace terms in which there will be co-operation between the two nations and their statesmen for the building up of a
1324
free Germany and a better Europe—terms in fact which would make for a lasting peace.
I suggest that the knowledge of what we would do if conveyed as it could be conveyed now to the German people might have a direct bearing on the duration of the war and its cost in terms of lives and misery. Up to the present the people of Germany have allowed the Nazis to continue their ruthless sway, as in their despairing fatalism they see no alternative and do not know which way to turn. If somebody of influence either in this House or in another place would rise and in simple language give the German people a picture of a future Europe with an England together with her Allies co-operating with a free Germany in her reconstruction and the reconstruction of Europe on a basis of peace, freedom and justice, I feel that a new hope would be born in that country where at present fear and fatalism combined strengthen the Nazi grip on the nation.
6.33 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, in listening to or sometimes reading debates on foreign affairs I am occasionally impressed by the fact that, with all the advantages of open discussion, there is some force in what fell from my noble friend behind me, that there is in critical times a certain danger in speechmaking. The Foreign Secretary may perhaps be pardoned if he is tempted above other men to feel that silence is golden, for even if what is said itself is a model of discretion—and this House is habitually a discreet assembly—it is not necessarily immune from misrepresentation in other quarters outside.
It has been perhaps partly that consideration that has led one or two of your Lordships this afternoon to revert to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, yesterday, in regard to the holding of a Secret Session. I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House yesterday, but I am quite sure that he will have taken in what fell from your Lordships to-day on that matter, as from my own point of view I have also done. It is noticeable, I think, that those who suggest a Secret Session on the whole

1325
are tempted to do so more for the value that it would have for members of the Government to hear frankly what members of the House think, than on account of any alleged value that might be supposed to attach to what members of the Government might say to members of the House. If that is so, I would suggest with all respect that open speech in a Secret Session is not the only channel of approach that members of either House enjoy to members of the Government. I shall, therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, not attempt perhaps to follow or to make answer in detail to everything that has fallen from those of your Lordships who have spoken, but take the opportunity of this debate, with reference to what has been said, of restating as briefly as I can the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards some at least of the questions that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who spoke last but one, referred to the mutual position towards each other of this country and France, and I can most warmly endorse everything he said in this sense, that I am quite certain that we have as much confidence in France as I am equally certain France has in this country; and I can assure him that at no point that I am aware of during, I was going to say recent weeks but if I said even months and I think years it would be more true, have we given any decision or made any pronouncement—nor are we in the least likely to do so—without the fullest consultation and exchange of views with the French Government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked me whether I felt able to make any observations in regard to Russian developments or in regard to Russo-Turkish developments. I do not know that I can usefully say anything in regard to Russian policy. It is a matter upon which I could certainly speculate, as of course could any of your Lordships, but I am not sure that at this stage it would be profitable for any of us to do so. With regard to Russo-Turkish relations I would only say this, that I thought the noble Viscount spoke words of profound wisdom when he urged those whom his words might reach to view with understanding the talks that Lad been taking place and were being renewed to-day between Russia and Turkey. We should certainly always be glad to see
1326
friendly relations maintained between two great neighbours, Russia and Turkey, which we believe need not in any way conflict with the closest relations between this country and Turkey or between Turkey and France.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, said with reference to Poland that partition could not destroy the spirit of the nation. I entirely agree with him. The heroic and most gallant resistance of the Polish armed forces and all the bravery that has been shown by the Polish people will no doubt be a fresh inspiration to the Poles to regain the independence of which they have been temporarily robbed, as they will also be an inspiration to other peoples. Your Lordships will perhaps be aware that the Polish President, M. Moscicki, has resigned his functions as President, and that those functions have been constitutionally assumed by M. Raczkiewicz, a former President of the Polish Senate, and that the Polish Government is being established on French soil. His Majesty's Government will, of course, recognise as the legal Polish Government the Government so established, and I have no doubt that that Government will continue to preserve intact the spirit of Polish independence and of Polish resistance.
The reasons why His Majesty's Government entered the war are well enough known. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the guarantee that His Majesty's Government had given to Poland, and it is quite true historically that the aggression of Germany on Poland called into play the obligations which we had assumed. But our thought would be incomplete unless we had also had in mind the reasons for which those obligations were assumed. Some might say that we accepted them in our own national self-interest. I do not suppose the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, would do other than challenge any such statement, but there are many people who would be prepared to maintain the counter argument against them. And in one sense that statement is most certainly true, inasmuch as German policy, so far as this has had for its purpose the domination of other countries and the destruction of their independence, has logically enough sought to proceed by way of one country at a time, and therefore it was quite reasonable for every-

1327
body who might feel themselves threatened, as we have often said to each other in this House, to draw together in making a common effort for self-protection.
That again in itself was but a perfectly natural expression of causes that we, I think, regard as much more fundamental, and the greatest of all these causes was the recognition by men and women in a great many countries that the method and the consequence of German aggression was nothing less than the destruction of everything which for them gave life its value. Such people had watched the tale of oppression in Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that that is the misfortune of the Germans and not our business. None the less people had watched it and had been impressed by it. They had seen its extension outside Germany, first to Austria and then to men of another race in Czecho-Slovakia. They feared, as has in fact been the case, that they were going to see the same treatment meted out to Poland. Each of these acts as they have taken place has resulted, of course, in the forcible alteration of the map of Europe, each has signified in the first place a continuous reversion to the way of violence in international dealing, of which the immediate consequence is, or would have been if left unchecked, to leave the weak wholly at the mercy of the strong.
But even worse than that, it has—has it not?—signified the attempt by Germany to force all who might be brought under the merciless control of a Party Government in Germany, to surrender all their liberty, liberty of life and liberty of conscience, under pain of every kind of persecution that the ingenuity of the governing elements in Germany might think it well to employ. Whatever differences there may have been, either here or elsewhere, upon issues of policy during the past months or years, there can, I think, be no difference of view among kindly, decent-living people of whatever nationality that these things do bring shame upon the Government that tries so to maintain itself in power and that if the world were to permit a continuance of these things, it would really be accepting a kind of condemnation to moral suicide, which indeed by its own acquiescence it would have deserved.
1328
These, then, are the reasons for which this country and France have thought it preferable to fight, when the only alternative was to see all the causes and the ideals which have claimed the best human loyalty through the ages destroyed before our eyes. I found myself wondering, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, how, if he believes, as I am sure he does believe, that human progress really depends upon the maintenance of certain values in the world, human progress may be maintained if we and others who have it in our power to defend them were to stand idly by and see in one country after another those human values extinguished and destroyed. It is indeed true that the things against which we fight are surely evil, and there can be no hope for the world, as I should think, or for the free life of the nations, until the lesson is learned that that way will not be tolerated.
If, therefore, England and France have embarked on this costly and dangerous struggle it is not because they seek material profit for themselves. War cannot bring material profit to those who wage it, whether they win or lose. Nor certainly do England and France desire either aggrandisement or vengeance. But they do seek to re-establish for themselves and for others liberty under the reign of law, the right of peoples to decide their own destinies, to trade freely, and to live without fear. Surely then, we are fighting for causes that are vital not only for ourselves but also for all those everywhere who love liberty, and in which we can hardly fail to be supported by the sympathies and good will of many nations which, although they may not be called to take an active part as belligerents themselves, are not less passionately devoted to the things that we seek to defend than we are ourselves.
It is commonly suggested that peace proposals may at some moment be made on behalf of the German Government, which France and this country could only refuse at the price of being held alone responsible for the continuance of the war. I have no information as to whether this supposition is or is not well founded. Still less am I in a position to anticipate of what nature any such proposals, if they were made, would be. And certainly, on the issue of responsibility there has, I suppose, never been a case in history where the responsibility for

1329
plunging Europe in war has been so plainly attached to a single individual. But proposals for peace, whatever their nature, have to be considered with reference to three circumstances: to the conditions in which they are offered; to the Government by which they are put forward; and to the security that might be held to attach to any agreement that might conceivably be reached.
As to the conditions, it has already been indicated that proposals may be put forward under a veiled threat; and there is no more perilous proceeding than to negotiate under the threat of force. Certainly I think neither this country nor France will be moved by threats to surrender the principles for which they have entered upon this struggle. As to the Government of Germany, I will only say that we have had very bitter experience of its character and its methods. As to assurances for the future, we have seen those rulers of Germany repudiate successive international documents which they had signed, and reverse the most fundamental principles of the policy which they had for long years most vehemently proclaimed. If, therefore, in place of threats it is sought to satisfy us with assurances, it is necessary to say that assurances from the present German Government are not enough. These then are not, I admit, favourable auspices. But if and when we receive proposals, we shall certainly examine them with care, and we shall measure them against the principles for which we have taken up arms; and I certainly would not rule out the suggestion of the noble Viscount opposite, that that might be a possible and a desirable opportunity for some reasoned statement of the position adopted by this country before the world.
Nobody desires this war to continue for a day or an hour that is unnecessary. We are all, with Lord Ponsonby, profoundly aware of what it means to this country and to humanity at large. Moreover, His Majesty's Government have always made it plain that once violence and bad faith in international relations were laid aside—and that is perhaps relevant to what fell from the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, and the general spirit of the plea that he made—we were ready and anxious to join hands with others, including Germany, in the work of real world reconstruction. We
1330
have repeatedly stated our willingness to make our own contribution to this end, through which benefits could be brought to the peoples of all nations alike. But it is impossible to begin to make any progress to that end unless first there is security, and unless nations can be released from the perpetual fear of attack by Germany and the consequent necessity of maintaining inflated armaments for their defence. The first duty therefore remains—and I am convinced that this is the feeling of the overwhelming mass of opinion in this country and in France—the first duty remains that of securing conditions under which the rule of violence no longer operates and under which the pledged word of Governments might again be held worthy of honourable trust. Anything less than that, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Snell, said at the beginning of our debate, could only at the best afford to Europe an uneasy and an uncertain period of armistice, and in no other way, I think, can we bring the world back to any peace that would be worthy of the name.
One word in conclusion on something that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in another place in regard to the position of Parliament. Noble Lords may perhaps have noticed that he said that the Government would raise no objection to another place or, of course, to this House, having ample opportunity for seeing any proposals which may be put forward, for considering them and for hearing what reply His Majesty's Government, on behalf of both Houses and the people of this country, would be disposed to send to them. I hope, therefore, that with that assurance His Majesty's Government may feel that, in the general attitude which they hold and with which they approach these problems, they do command the overwhelming support of both Houses of Parliament to-day and, as I think, the overwhelming support of the people of this land.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Viscount for the statement that he has made in answer to the Motion that I placed upon the Paper. I think the debate has been extremely helpful and I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, there is no business on the Order Paper for tomorrow; therefore I propose that on our adjournment this evening we should adjourn till Tuesday next. May I remind your Lordships that the House of Lords, sitting judicially, begins its sittings next week, and therefore we shall be unable to meet as early as we have been meeting in the past, on other days than Wednesday. Therefore we shall have to meet at a quarter past four on Tuesday, but the only business on the Paper for that day is to take the remaining stages of the Execution of Trusts (Emergency Provisions) Bill which was on the Paper to-day but which was postponed till that date, so it will be, as I understand, practically a formal sitting on Tuesday. On Wednesday I propose that we should meet at three o'clock and that then there should be first of all the questions by Lord Strabolgi and Lord Greville, which are already on the Paper and then perhaps, if the noble Lord opposite would put down a question asking for a statement, a statement will be made that day
1332
as the third business for that sitting. On Thursday I propose that the House should meet at a quarter past four to take the Finance Bill through all its stages, to be followed by a Royal Commission that same evening. I understand that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has been good enough to make arrangements for the future by which your Lordships, when you are sitting for judicial business, will meet at ten o'clock instead of at half-past ten and will sit till three. That will therefore enable your Lordships as a legislative Chamber to meet at half-past three instead of the usual quarter-past four. But that will not operate next week, because arrangements are not possible as soon as that. Therefore on Tuesday we meet at a quarter-past four for a more or less formal sitting; on Wednesday at three o'clock for a statement and the other business entered on the Paper; and on Thursday at a quarter-past four to take the Finance Bill through all its stages.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.