Lords Sitting of 24 January 1940

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

NEWS FILMS.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN rose to call attention to a Paramount News film recently displayed; and to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House careful censorship of news films in war-time is necessary. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to a matter of some interest at the present time and, I think, of some public importance: a news reel recently made by the Paramount Company and shown, I believe, in all parts of the country. This reel dealt with the return of Miss Unity Mitford and the resignation of Mr. Hore-Belisha. Its subject was first raised in a letter to The Times—a very excellent letter, as I think it—by Mr. Raymond Savage, but as perhaps some of your Lordships may not have read this letter or seen the film, I will endeavour to describe something of what I saw.
First of all I should explain that before Miss Unity Mitford returned a statement was made in the Press that an armed guard was posted at the clock on account of her arrival. I am informed that this was not the case. Armed guards had been posted at this dock and all docks throughout the country since the beginning of the war, and this armed guard naturally, as a matter of course, was on duty on the day of her return. The only privilege for which Lord Redesdale asked was from the local commandant whom he asked—and the request was granted—to prevent representatives of the Press from interviewing his daughter. As he believed that she was seriously ill, obviously that was a wise precaution to take, and I think that privilege would have been accorded to anybody, whether Peer or commoner, in similar circumstances. It was on this statement, or misstatement, about an armed guard that a film story was built up, and I will try to describe what I saw. First, a line of battleships manœuvring and throwing out
432
smoke-screens, then troops on parade, then a strong force of police, then a Royal guard of honour, then scores of aeroplanes flying in formation across the sky. All this, of course, was a fake. The only real part of the film, which was short, was this. There were pictures of Lord Redesdale, not unnaturally showing some anxiety; and then a stretcher was seen, the occupant of which was trying to hide her face from the cameras trained on her as the stretcher was transferred along the quayside to the ambulance.
It seems to me that to magnify the return of Miss Unity Mitford to this country into a matter of national importance, as this film seemed to do, was really absurd. But what I thought far more objectionable than the pictures taken was the running commentary in rather indifferent verse, in which the commentator proceeded to make what I, at all events, thought were rather cheap jokes at the expense of Lord Redesdale and his daughter. I am not concerned to defend the activities of Miss Unity Mitford in the months immediately preceding the war. I can understand that they caused annoyance and exasperation to many people in this country, but considering the unhappy plight in which, she returned home, to pour ridicule on her as was done in this commentary was to my mind an unfair and ungenerous proceeding.
LORD STRABOLGI: It poured ridicule on the armed forces, too.
LORD DENMAN: I may add that the gibes at Lord Redesdale's expense, with no pity for the anxiety he obviously felt, were to my mind, to say the least of it, uncalled for.
Now I will deal with the second part of the film, that concerning the resignation of Mr. Hore-Belisha. I will say at once that I am not prejudiced in one way or another about the right honourable gentleman. I have only had the privilege of hearing him speak once. That was in a Committee room only a few weeks ago, when he addressed your Lordships, and for my part I was favourably impressed, as I think many of your Lordships were, by the grasp of his subject which he showed and by his readiness in answering questions put to him. What I am saying now does not therefore in any way, I trust, reopen the question of his resigna-

433
tion. All I want to do is to comment on the way in which this matter was shown in the film news.
I happened to see this film about a fortnight ago, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is very difficult, when a film rapidly passes before your eyes, to grasp exactly what is shown, and still more difficult to remember exactly what is said by the commentator. So, not wishing to do an injustice to the Paramount Company or to state anything inaccurate in this House, I went on Monday to the headquarters of the Paramount Company in North London, and there I was very courteously received by the general manager, Mr. Cummins, who had the reel shown to me in the film studio. I had same conversation with Mr. Cummins, and in passing perhaps I may say that he seemed to me to be a thoroughly patriotic Englishman, who had served in France in the last war, and I am sure that he would do anything in his power to assist the prosecution of the war to-day. But I am bound to say that in presenting the resignation of Mr. Hore-Belisha in the way he did, in my view at all events he made an error of judgment.
I will endeavour briefly to describe this film also. The pictures were shown of Mr. Hore-Belisha engaged in carrying out some of the tasks that fell to his lot as Secretary for War. For instance, one saw him inspecting or visiting troops in barracks and camps, making a tour in France, and so forth. But what really impressed me was the commentary which accompanied these pictures. It began like this—and I think I have got almost the actual words of some, at all events, of this commentary:
"Downing Street springs the first political sensation of the war. Leslie Hore-Belisha, energetic, youthful, enterprising, leaves the Cabinet. The War Office, in the middle of a great war, drops the pilot. He modernised the army. Entering this vital Department in 1937, Belisha broke through the cobweb atmosphere, substituted efficiency for complacency and instituted the sweeping reforms which alone enabled Britain to send a fine, modernised army to France. Offending Army tradition, he enormously bettered the lot of the man in the ranks."
I should like to repeat those last words:
"Offending Army tradition, he enormously bettered the lot of the man in the ranks."
The commentary concluded with these words:
434
"Now that his work is bearing fruit, he has to go. His friends believe him to be the victim of a politico-military plot. And so, grateful for his fine work, the nation will decide whether or no the change is justified."
I think that this puts the case for Mr. Hore-Belisha rather high. I trust I shall not be guilty of any over-statement of my case if I remind the House that a British Army did exist prior to the year 1937, when Mr. Hore-Belisha became Secretary of State, that not all the officers of the Army at that time were a set of reactionary Colonel Blimps, and that the Army was not entirely, at all events, staffed by elderly fossils slowly petrifying in comfortable dug-outs at the War Office. I think the truth of the matter is to be found in a statement made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, last week, when he said:
"The majority of these reforms at any rate were proposed to the Secretary of State by his own military advisers."
I do not in the least grudge credit for these reforms being given to Mr. Hore-Belisha—if you like the major part of the credit—but it does seem to me that some credit is also due to the Army Council as a whole.
There are only one or two other observations that I should like to make. I submit that the power of these films for forming and influencing public opinion today is tremendous. After all, these films are seen by millions of people throughout the country. Their power rivals that of the Press; possibly some day it may surpass the power of the Press. I was a little surprised to find, when I looked into this matter, that there is no check whatever on these films, even in war-time. There are one or two suggestions which I should like to make. In the first place, I think that these films should be, as far as possible, impartial. Strict impartiality, as we know, is hard to obtain in this imperfect world, and all that I would ask for is reasonable impartiality as against blatant propaganda. In the next place I would suggest that, at all events in war-time, these films should be subjected to supervision of some kind. Your Lordships will notice that I have on the Paper a Motion in favour of censorship. Perhaps that is going rather far; perhaps that is rather more drastic than is absolutely necessary; but I do suggest that some kind of supervision is desirable,

435
and I trust that the noble Marquess, who I understand will reply for the Government, may be able, perhaps, to give me some reassurance on this point. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House careful censorship of news films in war-time is necessary.—(Lord Denman.)
3.45 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I do not propose to speak upon the particulars of the film which has been described; I should, however, like to say a word or two about the principle of censorship in matters of this kind. In the first place, I ask your Lordships to remember that the film industry is a comparatively new one. It has not had time, that is to say, to establish for itself a tradition upon which it can fall back for guidance on matters of this kind. It is therefore more likely to err, perhaps, than is an older-established industry. I can remember, as probably many of your Lordships can—those of your Lordships who ever went to such places!—the raw humour that was heard on the old music-hall stage; almost every offence against taste was committed and yet, somehow or other, I like to believe that the music hall evolved out of that stage, and there is a higher type of performance as a result. Then, at very great peril to myself, let me say that in my judgment the Press is not always overloaded with restraint on matters of this kind, and I do not quite know where we should end if we began a system of censorship.
I believe that, so long as we can avoid it, it would be right, even in war time, to avoid any formal censorship, in the first place because the censors are themselves human beings, with political passions like unto ourselves. I should not feel entirely happy in trusting my own judgment on matters of acute political controversy, and I should not like to take the responsibility of suppressing anyone else's point of view. If we are to approach these questions at all, we must try to be balanced in our own minds. For instance, after the episode of Munich the movietone Press conducted a campaign of eulogy on the whole subject entirely out of proportion to the issues concerned, and I do not remember that any protest was made on that occasion.
436
However, I will leave that point and will merely conclude by saying that, while I distrust censorship, there may be occasions when it is advisable. Many years ago I was Chairman of a Government Committee which examined the question of Colonial films. Throughout our Colonial Empire, in Central Africa and elsewhere, films of the most inadvisable type were being shown to native peoples, displaying a particular side of London life which might lead uninstructed natives to believe that that was all that London had to show. Where you have an ignorant people, I think there may be something to be said for protecting them against obviously unbalanced points of view; and we did in fact recommend that such a censorship should take place. But I like to believe that in England at the present time we are more or less grown up, and for myself I can stand any film—if I can stand one of any kind. And therefore, whilst I join with the noble Lord, Lord Denman, in regretting these two episodes, which so obviously were not subjects for treatment, I personally hesitate to follow him on the matter under discussion.
3.51 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): My Lords, the very wise words, if I may say so, which have fallen from the Leader of the Opposition on this general subject have taken much of what I would have liked to say out of my mouth. I must first explain that this Motion is, on the face of it, entirely harmless, and therefore is the more difficult to reply to. If one strictly reads the words of it, there is nothing to which one could possibly object. But it is clear that my noble friend had certain other implications in his mind when he put his Motion on the Paper, and it seems equally clear that those implications are dangerous. For it is quite obvious that what he really has in mind is to urge His Majesty's Government to tighten up the system of censorship on news reels which is already in force.
I would like to remind your Lordships shortly of what that system is. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into details of what I might call the moral side of the censorship, as exercised by the British Board of Film Censors. That worked in peace-time, and is still working

437
in war-time, with the object of preventing films being shown which would destroy the moral fibre of the nation. In wartime—and here I think my noble friend was a little in error—an additional censorship has been imposed. The power of that censorship is conferred by Regulation 3 of the Emergency Regulations, which provides that no person shall record or communicate any information about His Majesty's Forces or any information which might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy; and it further provides that that person shall not be guilty of an offence if he proves that he acted under the authority—and this is the essential part—or permission granted by or on behalf of His Majesty. It is under that regulation that both the newspapers and the news reels are entitled voluntarily to submit their material to the Censor, and when they have his imprimatur they are safe from prosecution. As your Lordships know perfectly well, newspapers voluntarily submit their material to the Censor, and so equally do the news-reel companies. Therefore your Lordships will see that, both from the point of view of morals and from the point of view of giving information likely to be helpful to the enemy, the position of the news reels is perfectly well safeguarded; that is to say, that they are censored.
With regard to the two films which have given rise to this debate this afternoon, it is perfectly obvious that neither of them came under either of these two heads. I have seen both, and I perfectly agree with my noble friend that as an example of sadistic brutality the Unity Mitford film would be hard to beat. I quite agree with him that it was deplorable. But was the treatment by the Press of that incident in his opinion any less reminiscent of the ducking stool and the scold's bridle? Does not he agree with me that if one was bad, the other on the whole was probably worse? We must keep a sense of proportion in this matter; and because one lapse has been made by a great company, we must not make it an excuse for Government action. With regard to the other film, which I have also seen, the Belisha film, I must confess I rather disagree with my noble friend's impression of that film, and I did not regard it as in any sense blatant propaganda; but that again is a matter of opinion. It seemed to me that there was a number of pictures of Mr.
438
Belisha briskly running up the steps of the War Office, plodding through the mud in France, and making a speech the sentiments of which we all endorse, and which he has himself done so much to fulfil.
I cannot see anything in that film that really could be taken as against public policy, or that any educated person would regard as particularly against the Government, or in favour of, or against, Lord Gort or Mr. Hore-Belisha. There again it shows that different people can have different opinions of the same film. But again, was that film more blatant, more propagandist, than anything that appeared in the popular Press during that period? And there is no Motion on the Paper, saying that we should impose a stricter censorship on the Press. Surely we must be logical in this matter, and we cannot differentiate between these two methods of diffusing news. I stand on that argument that you cannot make a difference between the news reel and the Press. One is as much an expression of opinion as the other, and as long as one has the right to express its opinion, so long should the other have the right to express its opinion.
I feel very strongly that there is a matter of some principle involved in this whole debate. If every time an abuse of freedom is committed, we allow that to be an opportunity for further Government control, further censorship, further denial of liberty, then I do believe that you are going to erode in a very few years perhaps the whole rock of personal liberty, in which as a Conservative I believe, and I think that everybody else in the House in his own idiom believes. It is easy to take little examples, little slips, and say, "Therefore we will step in, therefore we will control." Once you start doing that, you are on a slippery slope indeed. I believe there is nothing more worth fighting for, either in the field or in politics, than the personal liberty of the public, liberty of expression, and freedom. It is on that principle that I would base my suggestion to your Lordships that you should not accept what appears to be a perfectly harmless Motion, but which, in fact, has implications wider perhaps than were intended.
4.1 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but may I have the privilege of one sentence to comment on what the noble Marquess has said? With regard to his closing sentences, I know I am speaking on behalf of my noble friends when I say we entirely endorse every word he says; but when he states that there is no difference between newspapers and news reels I suggest that is a fallacy. People go to the cinema not knowing what news reels they are going to see, whereas when they buy a newspaper they know approximately what they are going to read.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: Does the noble Lord seriously suggest that when a man buys the Daily Express he knows what he is going to read in it?
LORD STRABOLGI: Undoubtedly he does. He knows the Daily Express is going to attack the Government. It always attacks the Government. I agree with it when it attacks the Government. When a man buys the Daily Herald he knows he is going to get more or less the Labour point of view, and when he buys The Times he knows he is going to get, again more or less, the Conservative point of view. If he does not like that point of view he does not buy the paper. But if my children go to a cinema to see a Walt Disney film or, say, Gulliver's Travels, before that film is shown they are shown a news reel and have no choice in the matter. I suggest that there is a great difference for that reason. May I humbly endorse what my noble friend Lord Snell has said that the news reels, and indeed the whole cinema industry, should keep off politics altogether? It would be far better for them if they did. It is far too dangerous for them. I believe that is the policy of the great cinematograph companies. They have to please all tastes, and they are well advised to keep off politics.
The only other matter is that the noble Marquess has taken the newspapers to task for their handling of the arrival of Miss Unity Mitford and also for their handling of the resignation of Mr. Hore-Belisha. The fact of the matter is that the Government, through the Ministry of Information, are keeping the newspapers so short of news that the unfortunate journalists grasp at any story that they
440
can write up and make interesting, as they think, for the people. Give the newspapers more real news, and you will be doing a good thing in many directions.
4.5 p.m
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, there is one point not dealt with in the speech of the noble Marquess. It is now admitted that one of these reels was a fake, that various detachments of His Majesty's Forces, aeroplanes, and the like were displayed in the reel as having been present at a certain place on a certain occasion. That is admitted to be not the case. Is there no offence in that, bringing in military movements which did not take place and exhibiting them to the world? I can easily imagine an occasion where it might be, not merely a fake, but a dangerous fake. That has not been dealt with at all. On the larger question, once again I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he says that surely news reels ought to keep off politics altogether.
The editor of the Paramount News, writing to The Times newspaper, suggested apparently that there should be a perfectly free and unchecked private propaganda conducted by the reels, that they should be in exactly the same position as the Press. That opens up a rather alarming prospect. Supposing a great corporation, with great interests, wished to promulgate their own point of view. They might capture one of these reels, and there would be no end to it. I submit that it would be far better, as the noble Lord opposite has said, that they should keep off politics altogether. It is said that this particular reel was inoffensive, at any rate from the point of view of the Government. What does the noble Lord say he heard? He heard that the Minister's friends believed he was the victim of military and political intrigue. That is bringing in politics of the most acute kind straight away. If there is to be unlimited competition by films in all kinds of opinion, perhaps political one day, perhaps theological another, perhaps the clash of economic interests the third, it is a serious prospect indeed which your Lordships might well weigh.
4.7 p.m.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot say I am very satisfied

441
with the reply the noble Marquess has given, but there is one thing for which I am grateful. He has condemned whole-heartedly the film that dealt with the return of Miss Unity Mitford. I understand that the Government have very little control over these news reels, and they do not propose to take any further control. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would use his influence, through the Home Office, to stop the further display in this country of this particular film of which he has expressed strong disapproval.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I shall certainly go into the matter, but, as I have said, the whole point of my argument is that public opinion must be the final judge in matters of taste.
LORD DENMAN: I do not propose to pursue the matter further, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I suggest that the House should now adjourn during pleasure because we are anxious to take the First Reading of the Czecho-Slovakia (Financial Claims and Refugees) Bill so that it may be read a second time on Tuesday next. That will enable us to dispense with a sitting tomorrow. Therefore, if your Lordships agree, I suggest that we should now melt away and wait until the Bill is brought up for First Reading later this afternoon.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity to tell your Lordships what the proposals are for business next week. On Tuesday, as I have said, there will be the Second Reading of this Czecho-Slovakia Bill which we shall read for the first time today. On Wednesday the remaining stages of that Bill will be taken, and there will be a Royal Commission to give it the Royal Assent. On the same day there will be the introduction of the right reverend Prelate the new Lord Bishop of Durham. I am not sure whether there will be a statement to be made by the Government next week, in the usual form, on the war situation, but perhaps I may be able to tell your Lordships more about it at the beginning of next week. So far
442
as I know at present, there is no business either for to-morrow or Thursday of next week. Therefore I suggest that we should meet on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week at half-past three o'clock each day.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL CLAIMS AND REFUGEES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.