Lords Sitting of 17 October 1939

Preamble
The House met at half-past three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.

U-BOAT AND AIR RAIDS: LOSS OF THE "ROYAL OAK."
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they can make any statement on the sinking of His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak" and the air raids upon Scotland and the North East coast.
THE MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE (LORD CHATFIELD): My Lords, the answer to the question put by the noble Lord opposite is as follows: The battleship "Royal Oak" was sunk at anchor by a U-boat in Scapa Flow at 1.30 a.m. on the 14th instant. It is still a matter of conjecture how the U-boat penetrated the defences of the harbour. When we consider that during the whole course of the last war this anchorage was found to be immune from such attacks, on account of the obstacles imposed by the currents and the net barrages, this entry by a U-boat must be considered as a remarkable exploit of professional skill and daring. A Board of Inquiry is now sitting at Scapa Flow to report upon all that occurred, and anything that I say must be subject to revision in the light of their conclusions. It appears probable that the U-boat fired a salvo of torpedoes at the "Royal Oak," of which only one hit the bow. This muffled explosion was at the time attributed to internal causes, and what is called the inflammable store where the kerosene and other such materials are kept was flooded. Twenty minutes later the U-boat fired three or four torpedoes and these striking in quick succession caused the ship to capsize and sink. She was lying at the extreme end of the harbour and therefore many officers and men were drowned before rescue could be organised from other vessels.
The lists of survivors have already been made public and I deeply regret to

1423
inform the House that upwards of 800 officers and men have lost their lives. The Admiralty immediately announced the loss of this fine ship. Serious as this loss is it does not affect the margin of security in heavy vessels which remains ample. Meanwhile an intensive search of the anchorage has not yet yielded any results. It is clear however that after a certain time the harbour can be pronounced clear as any U-boat would have to rise to the surface for air or perish. All necessary measures are being taken to increase the precautions which in the late war proved effectual. For the rest the report of the Board which is now examining the event in full technical detail must be awaited.
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question as to the air raid yesterday, I have the honour to inform your Lordships that a series of air raids took place on the Firth of Forth yesterday afternoon. In the light of the information now available it would appear that the air raid was carried out by twelve or possibly more aircraft in waves of two or three at a time. Two civilians were slightly injured by shell fragments: damage to civilian property was negligible. Naval casualties were caused on H.M.S. "Southampton," H.M.S. "Edinburgh," and the Destroyer "Mohawk." I deeply regret to say that altogether three officers and thirteen ratings were killed or died of wounds; that two officers were slightly injured; that eleven ratings were seriously injured and thirty-one slightly injured. The damage to H.M.S. "Southampton" and H.M.S. "Edinburgh" was slight and both vessels are ready for sea. The damage to H.M.S. "Mohawk" is superficial. The enemy were at once engaged by our fighter squadrons and by anti-aircraft fire. Four enemy bombers were brought down, of which one was shot down by anti-aircraft gun fire. In addition a number of other enemy aircraft were heavily engaged and some of these may not have been able to reach home.
As the attack was local and appeared to be developing only on a small scale, and as our defences were fully ready, it was not considered appropriate in this particular instance to issue an air raid warning which would have caused dislocation and inconvenience over a wide area. The responsibility for issuing air raid
1424
warnings must be left to the competent authorities, but the circumstances in which warnings should be issued will be carefully reviewed in the light of the experience gained.
I may also inform your Lordships that at 10.30 a.m. to-day an air raid took place on Scapa Flow. The attack was made by about four machines. Two bombs fell very near His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke" and the ship sustained certain damage. No casualties occurred. His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke" is an old battleship which, it will be recollected, was demilitarised under the London Naval Treaty of 1930, and had all her armour removed. She has since been used for depot and training ship purposes. One aircraft was shot down in flames by the fire of either ship or shore guns, and another was probably damaged.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for the answer he has given, and on behalf of my noble friend and myself would like to express our regret at the loss of life in both episodes. With regard to the submarine entering Scapa Flow, the noble and gallant Lord and I both know that anchorage very well, and it will be very interesting to learn how that could have happened, because in addition to the natural obstacles to which the noble and gallant Lord referred, I presume there were artificial aids, as we had in the last war, to prevent this sort of thing from happening. But that is subject matter for the inquiry, and I do not wish to make any remarks which might give information away.
With regard to the raid by aeroplanes on the Firth of Forth, and the explanation given as to why the air raid warning was not sounded, might I ask the Government this? Would it not be possible to organise air raid warnings locally or geographically? Everyone agrees now that if there is an air raid in Scotland it is absurd that the whole of England should be sent to cover and all work and activity brought to a standstill. That is ridiculous; but we had something of that kind at the beginning of the present war. It surely is necessary to have some localised system of warning so that, for example, if there is a possibility of bombs being dropped on a city, that particular area may have its warning. The noble Lord spoke of a wide area, but

1425
surely you could have a warning in the county in which Edinburgh is situated, because obviously if machines are hard pressed they may drop their bombs for lightness' sake and, if they preferably can do it over a city, they no doubt will. The fact that there is an old castle at Edinburgh would give them quite enough excuse to try it. I throw that suggestion out, and no doubt it is being considered. I know this matter has been discussed, and the view I have given is quite widely held among students of the subject.
LORD GAINFORD: May I ask the noble and gallant Lord, before he replies, whether he can inform your Lordships that there is ground for believing that the U-boat which succeeded in striking the "Royal Oak" was sunk afterwards and did not escape?
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, may I answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford first? We have no reason at the present time to know that the U-boat which sank the "Royal Oak" has been destroyed. I think we will all agree that the points put by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) are very appropriate. At this moment we are watching a new form of warfare, which does not always follow the anticipated course, but, as I have said, we are going to profit by our experience, and the points that the noble Lord has raised will be those to which we shall devote our attention.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask one more question about air raids? I understand that this morning, when the legal members of your Lordships' House were in session, an air-raid warning was given. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, knows about it, but I believe the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, does. I understand that the Court adjourned, or did not adjourn, as the case may be. Is anything known about that? It seems to me to be serious if noble and learned Lords have to suspend their sitting because there is a raid on the North-East coast. I believe there was an air-raid warning at Chatham, and that is getting near. But it would be unfortunate if noble and learned Lords had unnecessarily to adjourn their legal sitting because there happened to be a raid warning at some distant place.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am not so sure that the noble
1426
and gallant Lord has quite answered Lord Gainford's question. As far as I understood, his question was whether the U-boat which had entered Scapa Flow was sunk or not. I do not think the noble and gallant Lord answered that question.
LORD CHATFIELD: My answer was that as far as we know the U-boat that sunk the "Royal Oak" is still afloat.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is anything known about the air-raid warning given in your Lordships' House?
LORD CHATFIELD: I am afraid I have no information on that question. I can make inquiries and give the noble Lord the information later. I was not aware, until he had spoken, that there had been a warning.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I say it was not a formal warning? There was some misapprehension owing to the fact that a message was received here that an air raid was likely or imminent. There were, according to the newspapers, some aircraft over the North Sea and, I think, some aircraft approaching other ports on the coast. No sirens went, but when we received the information that an air raid was, or might be, imminent, by some misapprehension it was so conveyed to us that we thought it was a siren warning. We cannot always hear the sirens in this building, and those of your Lordships, including myself, who were engaged in legal business, repaired discreetly to the basement; but we did not stop there very long.

MILK RECORDING SCHEME.

  LICENSING OF BULLS.
  3.45 p.m.
  LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would reconsider their decision to abandon the milk recording scheme for the duration of the war in view of its importance to farmers, both for obtaining maximum yields of milk and for saving excessive use of foodstuffs; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords in asking His Majesty's Government the Question that stands in my name, I should like to remind your Lordships, if I may, of the origin of the official milk

  1427
  recording scheme of this country. The scheme was introduced during the course of the Great War, in 1917, and it appears remarkable that the scheme which was of such importance as to be introduced then should be immediately cancelled at the outbreak of the present war. The importance of the scheme to farmers generally is, I think, undoubted both, as stated in the Question, in helping them to obtain the greatest quantity of milk that they can and also, what is a most important factor in war time, in effecting a great saving of foodstuffs for their cattle. The scheme is not as widespread as it might be, owing to its cost, but we must remember that it is of great value to the owners of pedigree dairy herds for maintaining the standards of their breed. We must also remember that this country has been described as the stock market of the world, and I think nothing should be done even in war time, if avoidable, to risk impairing the quality of that pedigree stock. As regards the work, I understand the bulk of the printing in connection with the scheme had already been carried out before the war broke out, and that only a certain amount of binding and other preparation of the papers was required. The number of recorders in the country is not very large, but if they are required for other work it occurs to me that women could soon be trained to take their places. Each recorder looks after his own district, and the amount of petrol required to carry on should, I think, always be procurable for work of this importance. In view of these facts I hope His Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision. I beg to move.
  3.47 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I would like to support the noble Lord in urging His Majesty's Government to reconsider the decision which apparently they have taken. As has been pointed out, milk recording is essential to anybody who wants to feed his cattle economically and scientifically. Towards the end of the last war I was for a time at the Ministry of Food, and when there I had to meet many deputations from dairy farmers in connection with the fixing of milk prices and that sort of thing. I was struck then by the fact that a large number of farmers, unfortunately, did not feed their cattle scientifically, and did not have an
  1428
  adequate record of the milk yield of their cows. Therefore there was a very uneconomical milk production in their case. Nobody knows the course which this war is going to take, but one must visualise the possibility of having to ration milk cows. That can only be done properly if we have a record of the milk yield. Therefore I venture to support the noble Lord in the point he has submitted.
  I would also like to put another question, of which I have given him notice, to the noble Lord who is to reply. It is about the licensing of bulls. I understand that the Ministry are proposing to stop the licensing of bulls. Now this matter has been discussed in your Lordships' House very frequently in the past, and your Lordships are aware that the object of the licensing of bulls is to improve the stock and to get rid of the scrub bull. That is very necessary because at the present moment English cattle compare unfavourably with Irish cattle and with Scotch cattle, and that has been brought out quite clearly in connection with the Government subsidy on meat. The reason Irish store cattle are superior to English is that Ireland adopted a system of licensing bulls many years earlier than we did. The amount of money involved and the amount of trouble involved are very small. A small payment is made by the owner of the bull, the bull is licensed when ten months old, and not much staff is required. I would venture to press the noble Lord to reconsider this decision, if a decision has in fact been made.
  I am raising the point now in order to try to get from the Government a statement of policy. When the war is over, the livestock industry in this country, which is very important, is going to have very heavy competition from the Dominions and from South America, and it is only by maintaining the standard of our livestock that we can compete successfully. Inevitably the production of cow-beef, I think, is likely to increase as our consumption of milk increases. Already quite a large proportion of the beef that is on the market is cow-beef, and therefore not of the highest grade. I venture to suggest that if my information is correct—I hope it is not—the Government should reconsider the matter because we do want at the end of the war to find

  1429
  ourselves in the best position for competing with overseas countries.
  3.52 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD DENHAM): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will welcome the fact that this debate was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, who is so keen and so prominent an agriculturist. Most people know that he is a great authority on Guernsey cattle, and we know also that he has done a lot of work for the Hampshire Milk Recording Society. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, also has a distinguished record in agriculture, if I may say so, and has taken great interest in the matter about which he kindly gave me notice this morning. It is obvious that the two questions which have been brought before your Lordships this afternoon are both worthy of the deepest and most careful consideration of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and of the Government, and I would like to say a word about both matters before I sit down.
  With regard to milk recording I gather that there are some forty-nine societies at the present time, and the Ministry of Agriculture appreciate to the full the splendid and valuable work that has been done by these societies during the last twenty-five years. I do not know whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, aright, but I thought he said the scheme was started in 1917. I am informed that it was started in 1914, before the last war, and has been, in fact, in operation for some twenty-five years. As I say, the Ministry of Agriculture appreciate to the full the value of the work done by the milk recording societies, by their chairmen, by their management committees, by their secretaries, and last but not least, by their recorders. I should like to pay a special word of tribute to the recorders because their work is valuable and strenuous, and is often carried out under the most difficult and trying conditions, both as regards travel and weather. Undoubtedly it is true that under the official milk recording scheme, breeders of pedigree stock have been enabled to sell their stock to better advantage at higher prices. There has been another great advantage, that those who want to buy pedigree stock can go
  1430
  into the market and buy with their eyes open. The Ministry of Agriculture recognise to the full that the value of dairy breeds all over the country has been improved by this means. The place of milk recording in the activities of the dairy breed societies has not been lost sight of, and it is fully recognised that but for the interest in milk recording shown by these societies, official milk recording would not have attained, during the last twenty-five years, the usefulness that it has reached. It is true to say that not only the quality of the milk but the quantity has certainly increased.
  But, in spite of all this, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has had to come to the decision to suspend official milk recording. This decision was reached, I may tell your Lordships, only after the most careful thought and consideration, and with the greatest possible reluctance and regret. I would suggest to your Lordships that in war time the maintenance of non-essential services, however desirable the services may be in themselves, cannot be justified, not only from the point of view of finance and economy and the need of saving, but also from another point of view—the administrative point of view—because of the fresh war duties which are being undertaken by the livestock officers. It has been found that it is impossible to spare their services to carry out their old pre-war duties. I would argue that the suspension of milk recording for the period of the war, though very regrettable, surely will not do irreparable harm. After all, we must remember that milk recording was part of the long-term policy for the improvement of livestock, and if it were recognised, as I hope it will be recognised, that this suspension is temporary, then the decision could be viewed in its true light as a war measure, which can be put aside when peace returns. Your Lordships will not expect me to give a definite promise that everything will be reconstituted at the end of the war, but it is hoped that it may be possible, when the war is over, to restart an official scheme and to resume the payment of grants to milk recording societies in the same way that they have been made before the war.
  I want your Lordships, if I can make you see it, to get a true perspective of this matter. It is to be remembered that

  1431
  from the latest figures available at the Ministry of Agriculture there are forty-nine such societies, as I have said. They have 4,302 members with 4,792 herds, recording 133,628 cows. That figure of 133,628 cows, is just over 5 per cent. of the cow and heifer population of the country—the exact proportion is 5·2 per cent.—according to the returns which reached the Ministry as the result of the statistics which were collected on June 4 last. I would remind your Lordships that the whole purpose of this milk recording scheme was primarily an educative purpose—to teach the farmer to eliminate from his herds the unthrifty cow. Secondly, the purpose of the scheme, as both noble Lords have said, was to enable the farmer to discover the best feeding ration and the best way to ration his cows. There is nothing to prevent the individual farmer going on with milk recording, and I profoundly hope that he will do so. My right honourable friend asks me to tell your Lordships that the Government cannot reconsider the decision to suspend the scheme for the duration of the war.
  But—and here I come to the topic which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—closely bound up with milk recording is of course the great question of the licensing of bulls, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice this morning that he was going to raise this matter. There is no doubt that the Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, which was passed in 1931, has been of the greatest value in improving and maintaining the standard of cattle bred in this country. My right honourable friend feels that this Act constitutes a really basic measure for this purpose, affecting as it undoubtedly does the standard of the whole cattle population of the country. It was therefore, as your Lordships can imagine, with the very greatest regret that the Government—mainly for administrative reasons connected with the staff that were engaged in this work at the very outset of the war—felt compelled to announce the suspension of bull licensing. While, then, my answer about milk recording will, I am sure, have disappointed many of your Lordships, I am happy to be able to announce that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has decided to reverse the
  1432
  decision that the licensing of bulls should also cease.
  The licensing of bulls is to be resumed, and my right honourable friend has asked me to read the following statement:
  "On the outbreak of war it was found necessary for administrative reasons to announce the suspension of bull licensing. It has, however, now been found possible to overcome the initial difficulties, and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland have accordingly decided that it would be desirable to arrange for the resumption of bull licensing in order that the progress which has so far been achieved should be maintained, and to prevent any deterioration in the standard of cattle. This decision has the approval of the National Farmers' Unions for England and Wales and for Scotland.
  At the same time, in order to effect economy in expenditure on staff and to save the time of farmers in complying with their obligations under the Licensing of Bulls Act, certain simplifications in procedure will be introduced. The essential features of the Act, which are the inspection and licensing or rejection of every bull attaining the specified age and the farmers' right of appeal in the event of rejection, will be maintained unchanged, but it is now proposed that owners of licensed bulls and purchasers of such bulls shall be absolved from the obligation to notify the Ministry or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in connection with the transfer of licences."
  This notice will be in the hands of the Press before I sit down, and the Press notice will contain the necessary advice as to where application forms and so on can be obtained.
  There is one interesting thing about this. The Ministry of Agriculture in the last few weeks has been inundated by farmers all over the country asking that the decision to stop the licensing of bulls shall be reversed. This matter, therefore, touches almost every farmer in this country. I am sure that this announcement will be welcome to your Lordships as a whole, and certainly to the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in particular, because during the period that the Act has been in operation the noble Lord has put forward numerous bulls for licensing—I believe the exact number is twenty-nine—and they have been of such consistently high quality that I believe it is true to say that he has not yet had occasion to become acquainted with the procedure laid down in the Act for dealing with a rejected bull—which is a very drastic procedure. I think that is a very fine record, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so.

  1433
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, gave me notice this morning that he was going to refer to the question of premiums, and I think I ought to say a word about that, although actually he did not touch upon it. Premiums must go temporarily, in the same way as milk recording must go, and if I could say a word about the figures on this matter I should take up something which the noble Lord did let fall about the expense. Let me quote to your Lordships the grants which were included in the 1939 Estimates for these livestock services. They are of no small substance: premium bulls, £23,100; premium boars, £4,200; rams, £300; heavy horse societies, £13,500; milk recording societies, £14,000; and, if my arithmetic is correct, those figures amount to a grand total of £55,100, which it is proposed should be saved by suspending these services for the duration of the war. I suppose that most debates or most Motions in these days that come before your Lordships will advocate or connote the expenditure of more money. What I am trying to persuade your Lordships is that in this case economy is necessary, and that we should save the £55,100 to which I have referred.
  I have heard in the last twenty years very many speeches upon economy, and there are of course true economy and false economy. In the main I have found that where some subject is touched upon in which either members in another place or noble Lords here have a particular interest, to cut down on that service is false economy, whereas it is true economy to cut down on all other services. My right honourable friend has taken the wide view over the whole situation. Noble Lords will appreciate that under the scheme for ploughing up, under the allotments scheme, much extra money will have to be spent by the Ministry of Agriculture. I would advocate that this is a wise course that he is pursuing in cutting down these services—not because we should not love them to continue, but because we are faced with a war emergency.
  Let me sum up. I regret exceedingly not to have been able to give your Lordships a more helpful reply. On the other hand, believe me, my right honourable friend is faced with a war emergency and has taken every argument and every factor into consideration, and he does feel that he would not be justified
  1434
  in acceding to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in accepting his Motion. As some set-off to this disappointment, however, he feels that he has taken the right course in deciding that the licensing of bulls must go on. He hopes not only that this will safeguard the future of the whole cattle population of the country, but that the evil effects of any temporary suspension of milk recording will themselves be only temporary, and that the full activity and progress of the Ministry's schemes for the improvement of livestock will once more be set in motion when this deplorable and melancholy war is over.
  LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord who has replied for the Government. I feel sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and I are very grateful for the Minister's decision with regard to the bull licensing scheme, but I should like to make one or two remarks about the milk recording scheme, which is the object of my Motion. One regrets that the percentage figure given by the noble Lord is so low compared with all the dairy cows in the country, but at the same time it would be of more value to the pedigree breeder if it could be arrived at by comparison between the recorded and the non-recorded pedigree cows. With regard to the expenditure: when the noble Lord talks about a saving of £55,000, I must point out that the milk recording scheme, about which I particularly moved my Motion, cost, as he said, only £14,000, and although he has accused me in advance of saying that it is a false economy to suspend the scheme, yet from the figure he gave I still say it is a false economy.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NAZI LEADERS' INVESTMENTS.
4.10 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government if any further steps have been taken to draw attention to the charges which have been made against the Nazi leaders; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I called attention to this subject not long ago, I expressed the opinion, which is common on such occasions, that the question was one of

1435
considerable importance, especially from the propaganda point of view, and I not only adhere to that statement, but I think I can prove it in a sentence or two. No member of the Government of any importance ever makes a speech without pointing out that our quarrel is not with the German people but with the Nazi Government—that we have no grievance against the German people, but that we have a distinct grievance, as the rest of the civilised world has, against those men who, unfortunately for their fellow citizens, are governing Germany to-day.
When making these observations the other day I made a request to be furnished with specimens of the leaflets which were being circulated and, after considerable difficulty—difficulty experienced not only by myself but by persons in a much more important position, members of the Government—I did succeed in obtaining some of the leaflets, and I confess that the one dealing with this particular question seemed to me of an inadequate nature. And I may remark one curious fact—namely, that this particular leaflet and the others which came to me were actually marked "Secret." These are the documents which have been distributed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in Germany. Why be ashamed of it? Why should the Minister, so to speak, apologise in an indirect way for doing anything of the kind? It seems to me absolutely unintelligible.
To proceed, I say that the solitary leaflet which dealt with the misdeeds of the Nazi Government was of a somewhat bare and unconvincing nature. All that it did was to mention in a sort of incidental way, as if it were an everyday occurrence, that a certain journalist in America had made charges against the Nazi leaders. There was nothing in the shape of a comment at all. One would have thought that if you were circulating news of this description, at all events you would make some remarks upon it. I could imagine a good many remarks upon it that would have occurred to me. One would have been to point out the monstrous fact that these Nazi leaders were inflicting the most severe forms of punishment—imprisonment, fines, and I believe in certain cases even execution—upon people who commit the exact offences which they are charged with
1436
themselves. Now everybody knows that it is a penal offence to send money out of Germany. We know, to our cost, that we are not allowed to take out more than 10 marks if we go there, but these gentlemen, somehow or other, appear to have succeeded in transferring enormous sums of money to foreign countries and investing them there. The amount does not matter; it is the action which is illegal. It is just as illegal to send 10 marks abroad as it is to send 1,000.
There cannot be any real doubt as to what happened. The substance of the charges is obviously true—obviously true, I say, because no real attempt has been made to disprove them. The actual amounts are of no importance at all. What is important is whether these Nazi leaders have acted in this way or not, and I submit that it is perfectly clear by inference that they have committed this offence. Well, why should we be afraid to say it? There are two schools of propaganda. There is one which thinks that the proper way to conduct propaganda is by means of suggestion and a kind of infiltration—propaganda conducted in the hope that somehow or other, by some roundabout way, it may reach the enemy country and do a good deal of harm. I should describe it as an oblique way of dealing with the question. The other way is to make a downright attack upon the people whom you want to damage—in this case the Nazi leaders. Imagine what the case would have been if it had been reversed. Supposing, for instance, my noble friend Lord Halifax or the Prime Minister were convicted of doing this kind of thing, contrary to the law of the country, and that they had even gone so far as to have special consignments of, say, butter or coffee sent to them, when there were strict regulations to the contrary. Imagine what would have happened. They would have been held up by the Nazi Press as the enemies of mankind, with whom no human being ought to consort at all.
Personally, I do not in the least approve of the suggestion that we should use so-called kid-glove treatment with the Nazis. The Nazis are not only dishonest, they are brutal, and they cannot understand much beyond force. Therefore I should have no scruple in attacking them by whatever means were provided. Here we were provided with a perfect godsend in the shape of propaganda, and we do

1437
not seem to me to be taking advantage of it. I would like to ask the Minister of Information whether he has ever considered the value of repetition. Anybody connected with public life, and Parliamentary life in particular, knows quite well that if you say a thing once, even though it may be perfectly true, very few people pay the smallest attention to it. You have to go on repeating it and to continue doing so until eventually you become an intolerable bore, and then people listen to you. I should like to see the Minister of Information becoming an intolerable nuisance to the Nazi Government in that way, and, instead of relying on the effect of insinuation, by repeating what is said by other people, he might assume a great deal of what is said to be true, and act accordingly. Why, for instance, not circulate this news among neutral countries? My noble friend must have among his employees numerous persons who are skilled in what I will call the art of vituperation, and the talents of these people might well be employed on this particular occasion. You might even resort to pictorial methods. A great deal might be done in that way.
And I do not think it is sufficiently realised that what appear to be quite small and unimportant matters, in propaganda play a very considerable part. If I were in the position of a German Frau or a German workman, I should be very much more interested in hearing that Hitler himself, or Göring, or someone else, had been accumulating large sums of money and large stocks of food whilst I was starving. I should be very much more interested in that than in reading elaborate pamphlets pointing out the duties of democratic Governments and the superiority of those countries over Germany. These are methods which I think we ought not to neglect. Chance has put into our hand a most valuable opportunity. We, unfortunately, are not in a position to dictate to Germans who their Ministers should be, and if they elect to choose as their governors people who resemble gangsters more than anything else, that is their look-out. But what we can do—and what we do not do—is to point out the character of these men and the nature of their actions. I am perfectly certain that vigorous action of that kind would have much more effect than the oblique methods of which I have spoken.
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION (LORD MACMILLAN): My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord for his exhortations, but I hope I shall not follow them by becoming a bore, which seems to be his main suggestion to me. With regard to the particular topic raised in his Motion, apparently it is not quite so wide as the meaning of these words would bear, because the Notice runs:
"To ask His Majesty's Government if any further steps have been taken to draw attention to the charges which have been made against the Nazi leaders."
The charges made against the Nazi leaders range over almost the whole catalogue of crimes, but the particular charge in question is the charge that they have themselves invested funds abroad. So far as that particular charge is concerned, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that they have obtained the maximum propaganda value from it. There was a leaflet on the subject which was distributed through the air over a large part of Germany, and Mr. Knickerbocker's allegations were given the widest possible publicity by the B.B.C. and the Press, and were also heard in France and in other countries.
It is quite true that there is virtue in repetition. On the other hand, there are other matters on which I think at the moment it is more valuable for us to employ this method of publicity by means of leaflets. It is quite clear that this particular matter has gone home in Germany and has reached its mark. The noble Lord has had experience of propaganda, as his illuminating remarks show, but he will appreciate that it is not always possible to specify in public the methods which are adopted. To do so, of course, would entirely defeat the purpose of the propaganda. And while one welcomes comments and criticisms upon our efforts, if I were an enemy propagandist I would read with much satisfaction many of the criticisms which are made in this country, with a view to counteracting anything that is attempted. It is very easy to criticise our propaganda, and very attractive to our enemies to select the criticisms rather than the praise and in that way to discount and undermine anything which can be done.
Unfortunately, we are all propagandists and we all think ourselves able to

1439
criticise matters of propaganda. There is wide scope for difference of opinion upon these things and it is a little unfortunate, I think, if every publication or every step taken to promote our cause abroad should be subjected, I will not say to unfriendly criticism, but shall I say to severe criticism here, which enables our enemies to say, "That is what England thinks of its own propaganda." In that way it makes it almost impossible to carry on propaganda at all, and I would ask for a certain measure of indulgence in that respect, even although some of the productions may not commend themselves to everyone. But as regards this particular matter, its propaganda value was certainly most obvious to us all. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it was an excellent piece of propaganda to utilise, but in our opinion we have extracted from it all that is to be had from it, and I do not think it would be wise to repeat it now that we have learned from sources which I think are authoritative that it has gone home and has been fully appreciated.
4.24 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, may I be permitted to draw the Minister's attention to the great importance of effective propaganda in the East? Directly Herr Hitler came into power and office, he realised the exceptional value of propaganda and he seized the opportunity to establish most powerful broadcasting stations for that purpose. I think it is somewhat humiliating to receive correspondence and to hear that the propaganda which we send over to the East is not so clearly heard, is not so well received, and probably the matter transmitted is not so good or so effective, for the people whom it is intended to reach, as is German propaganda. I venture to suggest that it is our business to take steps as far as may be possible to see that the technical transmission and reception of our propaganda is as good as it can be made under modern conditions. We know that there are countries in the Near East which do not receive our propaganda as well as they hear the German propaganda. It is due, we are told, to blind spots. If there are blind spots which intervene, let us move our transmitting stations from our broadcasting places to other centres from which
1440
the propaganda can be just as well heard as from the German stations. I hope that not only shall we take great trouble in the preparation of our leaflets, but also that we shall use every possible effort to see that the propaganda reaches those whom we desire should receive it.
4.25 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I really only rise to express my sympathy with my noble friend because he occupies the least enviable position in the Government. A Minister of Propaganda seldom has any friends, but he has innumerable enemies, because everybody has his own ideas on the subject. Personally I think my own ideas are quite correct, and I regret very much not to receive further encouragement from the noble Lord. I cannot help thinking that, the longer he occupies his office, the more he will be urged to show greater activity in the direction which I have ventured to point out this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
4.26 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, in connection with the business of your Lordships' House, I desire to inform your Lordships that I have this afternoon circulated to you a White Paper which contains a statement which is being made by the Viceroy of India to the Indian people and which should appear in the Press of India and of this country to-morrow morning. I understand that the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, is asking a question to-morrow and putting down a Motion for Papers. In those circumstances I shall be glad to explain to your Lordships the circumstances in which the Viceroy's statement has been made.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, the judicial members of your Lordships' House have been good enough to arrange that it will be possible for us to meet at three o'clock to-morrow afternoon instead of half-past three. Therefore I propose

1441
that we should adjourn now till three o'clock to-morrow. The first business should be the discussion on the Indian matters which has just been referred to to by the Secretary of State, followed by the usual weekly Government statement. That I think is all the business that there
1442
is to-morrow, because I understand that the Motion on the Paper by the Earl of Midleton relating to the Ministry of Information has been adjourned.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past four o'clock.