Lords Sitting of 22 October 1940

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) ORDER, 1940.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.

SECURITIES (VALIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to resolve doubts as to the extent of certain restrictions affecting securities and to validate certain securities as respects which the restrictions were not complied with. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

GERMAN MENDACITY.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the remarkable and unparalleled mendacity of the German Government, including the organs under control of that Government, they will consider the propriety of publishing a White Paper in a number of foreign languages, as well as in English, containing a selection of the more striking Nazi untruths, with a statement of the actual facts, and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name I am desirous of calling attention to a feature in the German war technique which I do not think is wholly appreciated in this country, and particularly I am desirous of urging that steps should be taken which would enable foreign countries not yet under the German yoke to know what weight ought to be attached to the stories and the propaganda with
546
which they are being saturated. No doubt most people know that the German effort in this war has been aided by the deliberate use of two special allies—namely, cruelty and mendacity. As to the cruelty, there is no question at all; they use the word "frightfulness" in German to indicate the method, and they have never denied their desire to be frightful. The truth is that they are equally unblushing in their admission of mendacity as a legitimate weapon of war.
Let me cite to you two passages which show that doctrine. The first is this:
"The broad masses of the nation more readily fall victim to the big lie than to the small lie."
The second is:
"Perseverance is the first and most important condition of success… At first all of it appears to be idiotic in the impudence of its claims, later on it is looked upon as disturbing, and finally it is believed."
There are perhaps one or two of your Lordships who are not aware of the name of the profound philosopher who has given vent to those maxims. As a matter of fact his name is Adolf Hitler and they are to be found in the great work Mein Kampf. The same man has also enlarged upon the best method of lying. He says this:
"A definite factor in getting a lie believed is the size of the lie, for the broad mass of the people in its primitive simplicity of heart more readily falls victim to a big lie than to a small one."
He has never concealed his contempt for the people for whom the lies are invented because, as regards the masses, he describes them as "an empty-headed herd of sheep" and "the incarnation of stupidity." That is Herr Hitler's notion of the German people and, I doubt not, of many people of foreign nations.
Now I want to suggest a collection of the lies with which his own people and those of foreign countries have been favoured during the last year, arranged in a particular order—subject, of course, to the better judgment of the Ministry of Information—and so designed that the reader of them together will see that there can be no doubt at all that he has been fed with these continual untruths. The conquest or occupation of Austria and the conquest of the seven nations whose names we all know—Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and ultimately France—were largely achieved

547
by this weapon of lying promises and untruths. We cannot now afford, as I think, to neglect any useful method of meeting and fighting this technique, and the events of the past year have provided us with such a method. It is afforded by the accumulation of the astounding and unblushing lies of the Government of Germany under Hitler and the coterie of adventurers and boastful gangsters by which he has surrounded himself. The exposure of a single lie is of little use for the purpose I have in view, because a friendly reader may think, "Well, people do make mistakes and they may be misinformed"; but it is in our power to publish such a collection of gross falsehoods, sent forth both to the German people and to the world during the last year, that a man must needs be either hypnotised or wanting in brain if the bandage does not fall from his eyes.
I have in mind a publication—it is a good long time ago, but some of your Lordships will remember it—put forward by Mr. Arthur Balfour, as he then was, at a time when he was Irish Secretary; it was called Lies and Replies, and it was published in parallel columns stating the lie and the truth. I remember how effective that document was in the direction of proving to any unprejudiced reader, and even to readers with a prejudice, how strong the truth was that Mr. Arthur Balfour was representing. But I should like to say at once that I do not suggest that we should publish an encyclopædia of Teutonic falsehoods during the last few months. I know that paper is difficult to come by in this country, and it would be too long and too expensive to be worth while. But I do think some sort of handbook to German mendacity since the war began, or the months just preceding war, might have an exceedingly useful effect.
I begin with this—the sort of first chapter I would suggest. It should, I think, be a chapter relating to lies preliminary to breaking a contract, or treaty, or to invading a country. I have named the seven countries that you all know which Hitler has now under his control. Your Lordships know perfectly well—it is indisputable, and I think most people know that it is indisputable—that before invading any of these countries—quite a short time before and often repeatedly—he made statements that he had not the
548
smallest intention of entering those countries or interfering with their independence. The great point of this part of the case is that things are well known, that the speeches and the statements of Herr Hitler were broadcast or published all over the world, and the facts which followed are equally indisputable. So that we begin with this: we have a man who has announced his view that the great lie is the way to deal with any step such as he has taken.
We have a dozen instances of the lies he told the people of those countries before he interfered with their territory or their sovereignty. Your Lordships, however, may not know that in relation to France, which declared war against him owing to the Polish episode, he adopted a somewhat different technique—namely, that of inducing her people to throw down their arms in June last. I shall take up your Lordships' time only by citing two short passages from German broadcasts. The first, addressed to France, was on June 7 of this year:
"The Germans want peace, and are ready to lay down their arms against you whenever you wish."
The second was on June 21:
"France has been beaten and has collapsed after a heroic resistance. Germany does not intend, therefore, to impose a character of degradation upon the conditions and negotiations for an armistice with such a valiant foe."
Your Lordships know how these statements have been followed.
The second chapter in the case against Hitler relates to lies in the course of the war with this country. Your Lordships will remember that the day after war was declared we had the "Athenia" episode—a liner containing peaceful civilians, which was torpedoed on the outbreak of war, none of the passengers or crew being picked up by the Germans. They suggested that the ship was probably torpedoed by British action in order to rouse hatred for the Germans. On September 29 the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal" was declared to have been sunk, and that lie was repeated again and again from German sources. In December we had the multiple lie relating to the "Graf Spee." May I just take your Lordships through those four lies very shortly? The first one was that that pocket battleship had been engaged with the "Ajax," the

549
"Exeter," and the "Achilles," and the German account published in Berlin on December 14 stated that the "Exeter" was shot to pieces, the "Achilles" was believed to be sunk, and the "Ajax" fled. The battle thus ended, according to the German account, with the victory of the "Graf Spee," which was only hit by a few shells. That original account contained the second lie—namely, that gas shells were fired from the British warships at the "Graf Spee," and in particular mustard gas.
I shall not go through the whole case regarding the "Graf Spee" because it has been published. It is a very long and intricate story which has been published in pamphlets, and these, I believe, are accessible in this, country. It was not until December 18 that the German official news agency, which is shortly described as the D.N.B., published that the Uruguayan Government had refused to grant time for the restoration of the seaworthiness of the "Graf Spee," which they had previously asserted was not seriously damaged, and that the Fuhrer had accordingly given orders to blow it up. Of course that was a lie in its substance. It was not owing to these facts that the Fuhrer had given orders to blow it up. It was because the "Graf Spee" was unable to come out and fight. Then came the fourth misstatement, which was a calumny of the grossest kind. The German Press and wireless published the statement that at the funeral of the 36 fallen sailors of the "Graf Spee" British seamen spat on the coffins, and the climax of this incident was alleged to have been that they threw a dead dog upon the graves. It is true that they ultimately retracted that calumny, but not until local papers in South America had published the truth, which included the facts that the British sailors had sent a wreath to put on the graves, at the funeral and had asked permission to form a guard of honour. This story of insults was an absolute lie.
The third matter to which I wish to call attention is the, lies as to the alleged naval successes by the German Fleet. In this case may I remind your Lordships of an immortal work called The Travels of Baron Munchausen, containing excellent stories which used to form the reading of German children? The story I like best is that of the Baron who, in the course
550
of a hard winter, blew some tunes upon his horn, but the frost was so severe that there was a complete silence; but when spring came, and the thaw arrived, the tunes which he had blown into his horn began to issue one after another and filled the air with delight. That, really, is scarcely an exaggeration of the German tales with regard to their naval successes. On April 23 the Germans alleged that on the previous day—on that one day—they had sunk two British troopships, set one on fire, badly damaged two warships, and sunk one destroyer, two transports, one submarine, and other smaller vessels—a total of ten units of the British fleet. They also alleged that in the fortnight from April 10 last they had sunk seven battleships, one aircraft carrier, 13 cruisers, 15 destroyers, 14 submarines, 11 transport vessels—making altogether 61 units of the British Fleet—whereas, in truth, the total British losses from the outbreak of war to that date were only 18 fighting units. That, if stated properly, with adequate details, is almost sufficient to show that one need never pay any attention to German statements.
The next matter—the fourth matter that I suggest should be put together in the form of a chapter—relates to lies as to German victories in the air. Herr Goebbels claimed on October 5 last that on the previous day the position was that 2,400 British planes had been shot down since the second week in August. The most successful week in that month was from the 12th to the 18th, when 643 'planes were destroyed. The best week in September was from the 2nd to the 8th, when 441 were brought down. On the three days in September—the 7th, the 15th, and the 27th—the British lost, according to Dr. Goebbels, 274 'planes and the Germans 107. The truth was that only 584 British 'planes had been lost since the second week in August, while 2,211 German machines had been destroyed. Between the 12th and the 18th, which were the dates Goebbels selected, the Royal Air Force lost 111 aircraft and the Germans 591. From the 2nd September to the 8th the British had 125 'planes brought down and the Germans 367. On September 7, 15 and 27, the three dates mentioned by Goebbels, the Royal Air Force lost 81 'planes and the Nazis lost 417. That really is not much more of an exaggera-

551
tion than the stories of the Baron to which I have referred.
The fifth matter I should like to call attention to is the lies as to the condition of London since intensive air raiding began. The first one I select is that of 11th September. The Deutschlandsender published—and it is here purporting to publish what neutral countries are stating—the following:
"The United Press reports from London that a mass flight from the British capital has started."
Two days later they broadcast this statement:
"Public life of London has now come to a complete standstill. Cinemas and theatres are finally closed down. Traffic, with sporadic exceptions, is discontinued."
On the 15th September the Deutschlandsender published this:
"A police cordon has been drawn round London, and thousands of police are patrolling the outskirts to prevent a mass flight of the people. Only lorries with coal and food are allowed to enter the town and even foreign journalists are forbidden to leave."
On the 18th September the German broadcast in German stated:
"The seven million Londoners have completely lost their self-control. They run aimlessly about in the streets and are the victims of bombs and bursting shells. Complete demoralisation prevails among the fleeing population, screaming, shouting and breaking through the police cordons."
Now, my Lords, on the 18th September last there was a secret debate in the other House and in this House. I remember that it was the occasion when I made a speech and I presume some of your Lordships were doomed to listen to it; but your Lordships would have seen on your way here, if it had been so, this complete demoralisation, and the screaming, shouting and breaking through of the populace. The sad thing about this propaganda is that not only the German people believe it, but a great number of other people believe it. Then there was the broadcast on the 28th of August of a report purporting to come from Stockholm that the British railway system had completely broken down, and on the 13th August that there was a disastrous shortage of milk for babies and that they could now get no milk except one tin of condensed milk per week. I am trying to curtail my remarks because I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time.
The German propaganda of lies is, as I think these extracts show, so poisonous and continuous that it amounts to a new weapon. We all of us know that the Germans have the credit for having invented as a weapon of war the use of poison gas in a material form. They can now boast if they please the credit for using poison gas of another kind—namely, deliberate and unending untruths, intending on the one hand to poison the minds of their own people—the flocks of sheep to which Herr Hitler has referred—and on the other hand to deceive foreign nations not yet his slaves, and make them believe in German invincibility and in British decadence and certain ruin. Some people, remembering a Latin maxim, may believe that truth is great and will prevail. With all respect to any who believe that, it misses the point. The point is, that it may not prevail soon enough, and I venture to think it may not prevail unless we take every possible step soon enough for our great purpose in fighting this war.
The persistent lying of which I have given some very short examples has had its effect in foreign countries and there may even be people here who believe it. In particular, I am afraid in Spain and in some of the French Colonies there are persons who have swallowed this poisonous stuff fed to them by Germans. More, I think, can be done by the Ministry than has yet been done, though I readily admit that they have done a great deal in the direction which we all have at heart. The point is that we must supply an antidote as soon as possible for this poison, and the time is now ripe for doing it. It is in that spirit and with no intention of making any attack on the Ministry of Information that I have ventured to take up some of your Lordships' time, and given your Lordships the instances to which you have listened. I beg to move for Papers.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, may I in a few words support very heartily the suggestion which has fallen from my noble friend Lord Maugham? In the last war, as he has reminded your Lordships, steps were taken to contradict in every possible way the allegations and statements made by the German Government. At the beginning I do not know that very great success was obtained, but

553
as time went on the constant hammering in of contradictions had its effect. It had a great effect not only in neutral and allied countries, but also in Germany itself. My noble friend has quoted from Hitler's book Mein Kampf the statement which the author made that if you tell a big enough lie and a simple enough lie in the end it will be believed, and I suppose he has had no inconsiderable success in his method of propaganda. But he also referred in Mein Kampf to the British propaganda in the last war, and he tells us there that it was infinitely superior to the German propaganda. As your Lordships are well aware, our propaganda in the last war was not based upon falsehood because we did not believe that would pay. Hitler will probably find that out for himself in due course. When you are found out people will not believe any more what you say. We were scrupulously careful to adhere most strictly to the truth.
Now there are three targets at which propaganda may be aimed. In the first place there is the enemy, but I do not think that at the present juncture there is much to be gained by endeavouring to convert the enemy. They will not at present believe us. They will not listen to the truth. In the last war it was the same at first, but at the end, as Hitler in his book bears ample testimony, our contradiction to the Germans of their own statements had great effect. Directly their confidence was shaken in the propaganda of their own Government an enormous change took place. That was seen in Ludendorff's Memoirs in which he attributed the defeat of the German Armies largely, or almost entirely, to our propaganda. That of course was an exaggeration. It was an attempt by a German General to attribute the ill-success of his efforts to propaganda which he could not counteract rather than to definite defeat in the field. I remember very well, and I think my noble friend Lord Newton will remember, that at the end of the war contradiction of German statements had an enormous effect. They had that effect because they were supported by concrete evidence which Germans could see for themselves. At the present moment I do not think contradiction will do much good. If you do publish contradictions they will not get to the enemy, because the German Government have too tight a hold over
554
the Press for people in Germany to get contradictions except in very small doses through the wireless. In time no doubt the same thing will occur in the present war as in the last.
I would rather draw you Lordships' attention to the point made by my noble, and learned friend Lord Maugham about reasoned contradictions of statements made during the last war which were circulated all over the world and which obtained very great attention. As things began to be thought over that had a great effect. That sort of document may not perhaps have a very rapid effect but it is a considerable one in the end. Then there was another method which we used in the Department of the War Office with which I had the honour to be connected. That was not actual contradiction but it was a very careful explanation of the magnitude of the British Empire efforts. The result of that was to enable the newspapers of all the countries in the world, in which copies were circulated, to see the truth. They could verify our statements and it had the effect of contradicting mendacious statements on the part of the enemy. As regards stories about your Lordships' House being surrounded by a seething mob of revolutionaries, well, there are plenty of foreigners in this country who can contradict that sort of rubbish and nonsense, and therefore I do not think it is necessary that we should take particular steps against that. If statements are made by Germans of an insidious character which are difficult to contradict, then I think steps might be taken to deal with them. But I do entirely support my noble and learned friend and I think that if we can publish in all languages—that is very important, because often people will not read English even if they can—reasoned information about things to which we wish to draw the attention of the people of other countries, then I believe it will have a very great effect.
THE PARLAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, there is in existence a special branch of the Ministry of Information whose task it is to detect enemy lies and to give publicity to the true version of the facts. I may say at the outset that the governing policy of the Ministry of Information is, by strict attention to the

555
truth, to gain a world-wide reputation for veracity. I think it is fair to say that that reputation is well on the way towards being established. Our meticulous accuracy in publishing details of our own air losses, for instance, has gone a very long way to persuade neutral observers and others that we can be believed. And I may say in reply to my noble and learned friend who has just sat down, that I am told that in spite of the very great risks and dangers involved the Germans themselves do still listen to our news and do still pay very much more attention to what we publish than to what their own authorities say.
The governing policy of the Ministry of Information, as I have said, is to gain a reputation for unimpeachable veracity. That policy has some disadvantages. Complaint has been made on many occasions that we do not counter a lie until it is too late. The lie gains circulation all over the world before we issue our version. But if you are determined to be accurate, delay is inevitable. It takes time to collate facts. That applies to air losses and more particularly to naval engagements. But in spite of the disadvantages involved by delay, the Ministry do adhere to the policy of making quite sure that they can put the world in possession of the true facts before issuing their version of what has happened.
To revert to what I was saying about this special branch of the Ministry of Information, your Lordships may be interested to hear how it works. It reads all enemy news issues—that is German and Italian broadcasts to all countries—and all enemy news services, the Deutsche Nachrichten Büro, the Transocean News Service and the Stefani Agency. From these issues the Department selects lies which need an immediate counter and lies which may be usefully filed for future use—for instance, in order to discredit enemy news. Lies of general importance are dealt with by the department in consultation with the Service or Government Department concerned, while lies affecting specific areas are passed to the regional expert dealing with the country, or Dominion or Colony concerned. The counters to lies are issued through a variety of channels. First and most important there are the B.B.C. Foreign and Home programmes. At the moment very little is put out on
556
the Home programmes. That is because it is believed that the public pays much less attention to the German wireless than it did and does not believe it.
An instance came to my personal knowledge last week which struck me as very remarkable. In the news in English a pilot, who was said to have made more than twenty flights over London, described the intense anti-aircraft gunfire and how, in spite of that intense fire, German pilots would make as many as twenty runs over the target before dropping bombs, so great was the anxiety to avoid hitting any non-military objective. Thanks to these immense precautions, it was said, no non-military objective had been struck, but he could not promise that that would continue. If the spiteful anti-aircraft gunfire continued Germans might have to act more hastily and might bomb non-military objectives. That struck me as very astonishing. In a neutral country such a statement might be of some value, but to tell that particular lie to Londoners does not seem to me to have any very great value. Our counter-lie department does not attempt to counter that particular type of lie. There are cases in which counter-propaganda might merely serve to publicise the lie and gain credence for it.
There was another lie issued by the Germans when it was said that the Fuhrer himself, Herr Hitler, on one of his periodic flights over London, had observed His Majesty the King and the Prime Minister dashing rapidly for their shelter in a state of abject panic. That to us seems absurd, but I am told that among simple-minded peasants in the Near East it did gain a certain amount of credence and special steps were taken to deal with that lie. The other channel through which counter-statements are issued is the British official wireless, and there is also the Press liaison officer who issues statements to the home Press and to the news agencies which link up with Continental and overseas news agencies. Another and very important channel is the Chief Press Adviser at the Foreign Office, who is in daily and hourly touch with foreign correspondents in London. Yet another channel is by circular to His Majesty's Press Attaches, who are stationed in every capital of any importance throughout the world. The channel selected for this purpose depends largely on the news value of the

557
"counter" and on the area in which the lie has been circulated.
From all these sources material is selected which reveals the enemy's propaganda methods and information on the situation within the Reich and in enemy-occupied territory which it may be advantageous to reproduce either for the British public or for foreign propaganda purposes. There are three methods at present in use for passing on this information. A weekly selection is made of the outstanding examples of misleading propaganda by the enemy. This is principally for transmission to foreign correspondents by the regional experts. Secondly, from time to time quotations on a particular theme, collected from enemy broadcasts over a longer period, are made as studies in tendencies in enemy propaganda. These are circulated through normal Press channels. From time to time the most effective material is collected and published. It is of some interest to state that every single case of German mendacity which was quoted by my noble and learned friend has in fact been dealt with in one form or another, either by pamphlet or circular or leaflet issued to the foreign Press.
All this material, supplemented by summaries of the German and neutral Press, is used by the Department in the preparation of a publication called Talking Points, a short weekly publication for distribution to selected British residents abroad all over the world, issued to them through the Press Attachés, and to some six thousand people in this country. A good deal more is done by non-official agencies to give publicity to the unreliability of German statements. There is, for example, the Calendar of Aggression published by The Times in September of last year. That dealt with the point which my noble and learned friend made about the lies which preceded various acts of aggression. A number of copies was bought by the Ministry and circulated abroad. Other pamphlets are issued in the same way.
With regard to the question of a White Paper, my right honourable friend the Minister of Information will no doubt bear carefully in mind the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend, and he will always be on the look out for any methods which are more effective than those already in use of counteracting the
558
German weapon of lies. His weapon is the truth. At present his inclination is not to issue a White Paper; he considers that the other methods are more satisfactory, and he does not consider that this subject could best be dealt with by investing it with the dignity of a White Paper. I suppose that it is impossible to convey to your Lordships exactly what is being done, but I propose to deposit in the Library, so that your Lordships can examine them at leisure, copies of the various publications which are issued. They cover a wide range of subjects and a wide range of languages. I do not claim on behalf of my right honourable friend that his Department is perfect, or anything of that kind, but I think that very great attention is being paid to the subject, and I think that when your Lordships examine the matter which is issued to foreign Press correspondents and to our own Press agencies all over the world you will agree that a very great deal is being done to counter this particular weapon.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I should like to ask whether these publications are made in various foreign languages and in various foreign countries.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes, my Lords. If your Lordships care to examine them in the Library you will find that they cover a very large number indeed of foreign languages.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I was well aware that a good deal was being done by the Ministry of Information, because the Minister himself was good enough to send me copies of the various matters to which the noble Duke has referred. I should like to say that for my part I know perfectly well that people will differ very much on questions of psychology, and I do not think that in truth there is anybody whose opinion is worth very much more than that of anybody else as to how the minds of foreign people can best be approached in a matter of this kind. It may be that I am wrong, but I would frankly tell your Lordships that in my opinion the Ministry are not quite right in thinking that the contradiction of individual lies on rather scrappy bits of paper, however continuous, is the only way or even the best

559
way available at the present time for showing that the present German Government is a Government of liars. But, however that may be, it is a matter for which the Ministry must take responsibility. I have not the smallest doubt that they are doing their very best to carry out the aim which we all have at heart, and I am glad to ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not want to take up your Lordships' time for more than a moment or two, but perhaps I ought to say a word on the object of the Committee that I am venturing to ask your Lordships to set up. It will be remembered that we have had one or two discussions—one which was initiated by a Motion on the Paper, another which arose informally in regard to procedure, and I think the matter had been mentioned before that. It arose mainly out of the use of starred questions, which have now become much more frequent than they were before the war, and the regulation of such questions. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Addison who suggested that this matter might be given careful consideration and, when the subject was considered, it seemed to us desirable to frame the terms of reference to provide a rather larger scope, so that any or all questions which might occur to members of the Committee—which, as your Lordships will see, is intended to be a very large and representative one—might be discussed and recommendations made to your Lordships either for the amendment of the Standing Orders or for some other method, such as the alteration of the Companion to the Standing Orders. I therefore beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether alterations in the procedure of this House are advisable in the existing circumstances and, if so, whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered for that purpose, and that the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Select Committee:
560

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Lucan,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Halifax,

V. Ullswater,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templemore,

L. Denman,

L. Stanmore,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Addison.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I only want to say from our side that we cordially support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DR. VLADIMIR CLEMENTIS.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON rose to call attention to the case of Dr. Vladimir Clementis, and to ask His Majesty's Government the reason for his internment. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when this Motion was withdrawn last week those of your Lordships who were present—many of whom on previous occasions, when I myself or other members of your Lordships' House, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Newton, raised the matter of refugees, showed so very much sympathy with this question—must, I think, have been profoundly concerned to learn that we have received no answers to the cases that we raised in your Lordships' House. This must have seemed to all your Lordships, as it has to myself, a horrid example of just that dilatoriness against which, I think, all speakers on this subject in your Lordships' House protested most strongly. But the reason that I have ventured to raise this particular case yet again in your Lordships' House is that it seems to me to raise certain questions of public policy.
It was—I say advisedly it was—a question of very considerable complication. The refugee, Dr. Vladimir Clementis, on whose behalf I am asking this question, is a Czech Deputy whom I met here in England at the time of the Munich crisis. He has a certain number of friends and contacts here in England, and was a

561
member of the Czech Parliament for the large manufacturing town of Brno. He is a Communist, and was obliged to flee his country as soon as the Germans moved in. He was fortunate enough to make his way to France, where he was living when the war broke out. He immediately joined up in the Czech Army before there was any question of conscription of Czechs outside Czecho-Slovakia, as did many other Czechs, who came from all parts of the world to join the Czech Army quite voluntarily. I do not know what grounds there have been for the very considerable number of complaints which have been made by members of that Czech Army as to their treatment and as to the way in which that Army was run in France. As I say, I am net in a position to judge as to how well those complaints are founded, but they are so many and so frequent that I cannot help feeling that, unfortunately, there may have been at least something in them. However, the situation was altered when these men, luckily, were able to be evacuated to England. They were informed by a responsible member of what is now the Czech National Committee that the Czech Army had in fact been disbanded. They arrived in England, and they found themselves subject to the Allied Forces Act.
That is an Act against which I ventured to protest when it was before your Lordships' House. Experience of it has led me to feel, I am sorry to say, that my protest was far too weak. I believed then, and I asked the noble Lord who was replying for the Government to say whether it was not a fact, that it was without precedent—and it is without precedent. And whilst probably a very good case can be made for giving such powers over their nationals to Governments which have been in existence in their own country and have managed to escape to our shores—such as the Norwegian and the Dutch—I think that the same does now apply to what, without any wish to reflect upon the personnel of such Governments, can only be described as fabricated Governments—Governments which consist of persons who have no kind of mandate from their own people or at any rate have a rather indirect mandate, if any, from their own people, who may be very considerable and important figures in their own country, but who did not form the Government of that country when it was invaded by Germany, and who are not in
562
any sense a complete Government of that country within our shores. To give such people the very large, and one might almost say sovereign, powers which have been given to them in this country seemed to me at the time, and seems to me now even more, to have been an extremely rash and precipitate act. I am convinced in my own mind that the correct procedure was the procedure followed in the last war when Czecho-Slovak legions were raised and were part of the Allied Armies. The same process incidently is, I believe, followed at the present moment in the Royal Air Force, who have a Polish squadron attached to them.
But this rash Act has given rise to a very difficult situation, because there are a certain number of Czechs who do not recognise the authority of the existing Czech National Committee. Now that Committee, as your Lordships are aware, contains certain well-known Czech national figures, Dr. Benes, M. Masaryk and others. It contains also persons to whom, I must say I think not entirely without reason, a number of Czechoslovaks take considerable exception. There are, for example, two men who continued as Ministers in the Czech Government after the Germans had entered Prague. They have now fled and made their way here. But I think your Lordships will conclude that their anti-Nazi feelings were perhaps not quite as strong as those at any rate of people like Dr. Clementis, who had to flee for his life as soon as the Germans came into his country. That, it seems to me, is self-evident. His Majesty's Government may have had good reasons for persuading Dr. Benes to associate himself with such people, or Dr. Benes himself may have found himself in greater sympathy with such people than he did with, say, the Communist Deputies, because I will tell your Lordships that there are two other Communist Deputies besides Dr. Clementis who are at present interned in England. I am not informed in detail about the other two cases as I am about Dr. Clementis, whom I know personally, but at any rate it may be that Dr. Benes prefers to co-operate with those people, it may be that His Majesty's Government thought that perhaps they were better company to keep than the aforesaid Communist Deputies.
But however that may be, it would seem to me desirable—and I think your

563
Lordships will now agree—that if you were going to set up a National Committee of this kind it should contain all shades of political opinion. On the other hand, I recognise that very probably the gentlemen in question, who presumably belonged to what is called the Extreme Right, would have refused to co-operate with other Deputies who belonged to the Extreme Left. And possibly the contrary is also equally true. But though that may be so I think most of your Lordships will probably agree with me that it is essential in this country, where we claim to be fighting for personal freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of thought—that we should not give the impression that we are in fact favouring in foreign countries one political complexion rather than another. Not only would it be inconsistent, but it would be profoundly inadvisable. I dare say some of your Lordships have seen a book entitled 100,000,000 Allies If We Choose. Most of these 100,000,000 are not gentlemen of the Right, gentlemen who would, if they could, have made a compromise with Herr Hitler. These 100,000,000 allies, for the most part, are far more nearly related, politically, to Dr. Clementis, who had to flee from Herr Hitler, and we shall not have these allies if we intern them and their leaders when they escape to this country.
As to the difficult position raised by ex-members of the Czecho-Slovak Army here in England, the vast majority volunteered for the British Army, and a great many were accepted. That was, in the unfortunate situation which had arisen, a very sensible compromise; but Dr. Clementis was medically examined and was found to be unfit, and his situation therefore is fundamentally changed. He becomes an ordinary internee. He is not fit for service in the British Army, and also not liable for service in the Czech forces. He becomes a common or garden internee, but an internee of certain importance as a Deputy of a country which, as I have said, is by way of being an Ally. It is extremely important that he should be set at liberty and that we should show our willingness to co-operate with all forces in Europe which are opposed to our enemy. It may be that we do not like Dr. Clementis's particular colour of political opinion, but there can
564
be no doubt of his intense opposition to the Nazi régime. Surely the only good reason for interning any persons at this moment in this country can be that they might betray us to our enemy, that they might be in sympathy with our enemy. This cannot possibly apply in the present case, and I do hope, for these reasons, that the noble Duke who is going to reply for the Home Office will be able to tell me that Dr. Clementis soon will be, and probably already has been, set at liberty.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I inquired of my right honourable friend at the Home Office the reason for the delay in replying, as he promised, to the series of questions put by the noble Lord, and his explanation is one which I hope the noble Lord will accept. My right honourable friend delayed his reply until he was able to give a complete reply to the various points raised. They were numerous, and some of them necessitated long and complicated inquiry. I have asked my right honourable friend to reply to all the points he can now, and to send a further reply dealing with the points with which at present he is not familiar. I hope my noble friend opposite will realise that there has been no discourtesy, and that the only reason for the delay was that he might get as full a reply as possible.
Dr. Clementis is on the nominal roll of the Czechs detained at Glenbranter camp. He appears on the roll as Vlado Clementis, and it is assumed that he is identical with Dr. Vladimir Clementis about whom the noble Lord asks. This Clementis is one of a number of discontented Czech soldiers who were a centre of disaffection and disturbance at the Czech military camp at Cholmondeley, Cheshire. At the express request of the Czech military authorities, it was agreed that these discontented soldiers should be segregated. It clearly would not have been right for the Czech authorities to demobilise these men and to allow them to be at large as civilians in this country. On the other hand, until the passing of the Allied Forces Act, the Czech authorities had no power to deal with military offences committed by members of the Czech military forces in this country, and if they were to be segregated in a camp and detained there the only available power was that which the Secretary of State had under Article 12(5a) of the

565
Aliens Order. The circumstances were explained to the War Office and to the Home Secretary, who considered them, and he decided to make an Order under Article 12 authorising their detention. It rested entirely with the Home Secretary whether or not he should exercise these powers, and on the information supplied by the War Office he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to segregate and detain them until such time as they could be dealt with by the Czech military authorities.
There were negotiations with the Czech Government and the War Office through the medium of the Foreign Office, and it was agreed that these Czech soldiers should be given an opportunity of enlisting in the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps. Of the total of 539 Czechs who were segregated and detained in Sutton Coldfield Internment Camp, about 460 have enlisted in the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps. The others have either refused to volunteer or were unacceptable for medical or other reasons, and these have been removed to Glenbranter Camp. Orders in Council under the Allied Forces Act have now been made, and the War Office have requested the Czech military authorities to take the remainder of these men back into their charge and to deal with each individual case on its merits, so that Dr. Clementis will not be interned for more than a very short time longer.

ENEMY SUBMARINE SUPPLIES.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the allegation made by a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament on the nth of this month in Belfast to the effect that enemy submarines are being supplied from Eire territory; whether they are aware that this allegation has received publicity in the Press; and whether they are in a position to refute the allegation and to give the facts; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I propose to put is not intended in any way to embarrass His Majesty's Government, and certainly not to embarrass the newly appointed Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who
566
is such a distinguished member of another place and whom—I hope a long time from now—we shall nevertheless welcome to this House in due course. I also want to make it immediately clear that, like all my friends in this House and elsewhere, we regret the fact that the Dominion of Eire declared for neutrality at the beginning of the war and has maintained that neutrality. We also regret the fact, arising out of that, that the magnificent Irish harbours in Eire are not available for the Royal Navy. Having said that, I do not propose to look into the reasons for it or to rake over the embers of past history, though I dare say I should have a good deal of support if I did from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I have reason to believe, from information that has reached me, that the neutrality—whatever we may think about it—of the Government in Dublin has been strictly observed.
I raise this matter because of an allegation that has received very wide publicity in this country, and I believe also in other countries, made by a member of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, Dr. James Little, who represents County Down, and who declared, in a speech which has received publicity in the English papers, that the Eire Government are winking at, or permitting, supplies of petrol to German submarines from Irish territory. I wish to say at once that the distinguished divine in question, Dr. James Little, of the Castle Presbyterian Church, Belfast, a prominent member of the Orange Order, is quite wrong in his facts in supposing that submarines use petrol. My noble friends opposite, wearing the magnificent uniform of my old Service, will bear me out when I say that submarines have no use for petrol. Submarines run on Diesel engines, and the Diesel engine burns heavy oil fuel. I have had very happy experiences of the west of Ireland. I know it fairly well and know the people there, and the idea that you can convey large quantities of heavy oil fuel or anything else to Bantry Bay or any of the other harbours there to supply German submarines, without its being known, is grotesque. It is bound to be known. I would also remind your Lordships that a submarine is a very distinct type of warship which cannot be mistaken for anything else.
Dr. Little is wrong in his facts in saying that petrol is being supplied, and I do not believe the story for a moment. I want to give the Government an opportunity of explaining exactly what the situation is. I would also remind your Lordships that our very distinguished representative in Dublin, Sir John Maffey, has a naval adviser who would be alive to these things, and I cannot imagine that he would allow such a happening to escape his attention. This statement of Dr. Little has received wide publicity, and I would like to ask my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House, Lord Snell, if he can explain why the Ministry of Information, who, as we have just heard in connection with Lord Maugham's Motion, are anxious to catch up with any lies of the Germans, have allowed this statement to be given such wide publicity without taking some action in the matter either saying it was true or untrue.
I understand further that the Eire Government has issued a démenti on this matter, but I have seen no mention of this in the British newspapers, and I would have thought that the matter was so important that when the Eire Government issued an official denial the British Broadcasting Corporation might have mentioned it. However, that is a matter really for the Government to give an opinion upon. I would be very grateful if my noble friend, in the interest of truth and also for the comfort of our own people, would tell us what are the real facts, whether pleasant or otherwise. We do not want these rumours disturbing the lieges, who have plenty of troubles in this country without supposing that these malpractices are going on in Ireland. If the statements are untrue I should be very grateful if my noble friend would tell us so. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the question which has been raised by the noble Lord is one of great delicacy and of some importance. Let it be said at once that if the suspicions which he has mentioned were proved they would quite properly and inevitably give rise to some anxiety and to a situation of some urgency. I regret that I have no information upon the particular point about which the noble Lord asked me for information, relating to why the Ministry of Information
568
allowed the statements to be put into the Press and why no statements have been made on their behalf at a later stage. All that I am able to say to-day, bearing in mind all that is involved, is that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have no evidence to the effect that enemy submarines are being supplied from Eire territory.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the statement he has made. I made a slip which I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for pointing out to me. The Rev. James Little, it appears, is a member of another place. I thought he was a Member of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and I apologise to your Lordships for the mistake. I think that makes it all the more necessary that this matter should have been dealt with, and I am sure that everyone who reads my noble friend's statement will be glad to hear that His Majesty's Government have no evidence of these alleged malpractices. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Lord who replied for the Government a single question, and it is why no steps have been taken to obtain evidence. This statement is an extremely important one. It is not often I feel inclined to agree with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) but on this occasion I think he has rendered a very valuable service, and he ought to do his best to force a plain answer from the Government on the subject. The reply of my noble friend from the Front Bench does not seem to be absolutely conclusive. He says that His Majesty's Government have no information that these proceedings have taken place. What I would like to know is whether they have made any inquiries into the allegation.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I should say that His Majesty's Government are not in the habit of making general statements without having made some inquiry as to the facts.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you will have received a notice acquainting you of the

569
next meeting of the House, when it is proposed that we should take the Consolidation Fund Bill through all its stages, as well as the remaining stages of the Securities (Validation) Bill, which we read a first time this morning.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House whether he could give us any information as to whether the Bill
570
to prolong the life of Parliament will be likely to come before us soon?
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord the Bill will not be unnecessarily delayed, but I cannot tell how long it will take to get through all its stages in another place. I have no evidence that it will be available to your Lordships next week.
House adjourned.