Lords Sitting of 14 April 1942

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you will, I know, be sorry to hear that the Lord Chairman of Committees, Lord Onslow, has been advised by his doctors that it is necessary that he should take a rest from all official duties for a few months. It is hoped that he will then be completely restored to health. In the meantime I am asking your Lordships to pass the Motion which I have placed upon the Paper in order to enable Lord Stanmore to discharge the duties of the Lord Chairman in the enforced absence of the noble Earl. As your Lordships will remember, Lord Stanmore has on a previous occasion acted as Lord Chairman while Lord Onslow was resting under doctor's orders. The House is indeed fortunate to be able to avail itself of his services on this occasion, and we are all very much indebted to him for his willingness to act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House in the temporary absence of the Earl of Onslow; that the Lord Stanmore do take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Lord Stanmore do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and discharge such other duties as are discharged by the Chairman of Committees unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing on the Paper in my name
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how many contracts of £50,000 and over, based upon cost plus a percentage
570
of profit, are now in operation and whether any contracts on this basis have been entered into in Northern Ireland.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I am having inquiries made to ascertain whether there are any such contracts, and if so how many, and I will communicate with the noble Lord as soon as possible.

POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY FOR HIGHER COMMANDS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, when the practice of issuing a weekly political intelligence summary by the Foreign Office to the Higher Commands of the Armed Forces was instituted; whether the summaries contain any information likely to be of use to the enemy and, if not, why it is considered to be in the public interest that these political and objective summaries should not be made available to Members of Parliament of both Houses.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the issue of the Foreign Office Weekly Political Intelligence Summary to the Higher Commands dates from 15th April, 1940. The purpose is to keep them informed of the latest political developments and to provide them with a reasoned analysis of those developments prepared by experts. Much of the information contained in the summaries is of a strictly confidential nature and would certainly be of use to the enemy.

THE DAILY WORKER.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether it is still necessary to prevent the publication of the Daily Worker; and also move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may remember that not very long ago, when the question of the warning given to the Daily Mirror newspaper was the subject of debate, the case of the Daily Worker was mentioned in the course of the discussion, and I asked His Majesty's Government whether they were able to make any observations with regard

571
to it. At that time they were not able to do so and therefore I have placed this Notice on the Paper for the purpose of inquiry. As I think I said on that occasion, I have never seen a copy of the newspaper the Daily Worker, and if I had, I may add that I greatly doubt whether I should find myself in agreement with anything that it said on any subject. Perhaps I should not be alone in holding that view, because I believe that as regards the attitude of that newspaper on labour questions those who are entitled to speak for trade unions would not view its reappearance with any enthusiasm. That, however, is really not the point. I am only putting this question as an old-fashioned Liberal to whom the freedom of expression either by individuals or by the Press is a subject of such great moment that I think the most scrupulous care should be used in departing from that freedom.
I have no doubt many of your Lordships would hold the same view, and I am quite sure my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would say that he would yield to nobody in believing that in ordinary circumstances freedom of expression of opinion should be respected. In ordinary circumstances, of course, the matter is simple enough. Certain limitations are set to the freedom of expression—limitations depending on public security and public decency—and those who exceed those limitations are subject to action by the police in the Courts of Law. In the case of an individual who considers himself to be libelled or misrepresented, he has a civil remedy at his command, and every respectable newspaper, every organ of the people, is prepared to pay reasonable compensation if it finds that it has made a mistake or has unwittingly misrepresented anybody. Of course, there are cases where papers which are not reputable, by transferring what should be their liability to some man of straw, are able to escape the penalty which they ought to pay. I speak of what happens in ordinary times; but these are not ordinary times. The country is going through the most severe test that it has ever had to face, and we are engaged in a war which we are determined will not end until the Axis Powers are prostrate in the dust. Therefore any person or persons who fetter the desire of nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of the people of
572
this country to carry this war to an end, those who hamper or interfere with the efforts of war, have to be silenced. And that is true whatever their object may be.
There are some, fortunately not very many (and I hope that most of them are safely under lock and key) who are definitely in favour of the theories of National Socialism or Fascism. That is at one end of the scale. At the other end of the scale there are those who object to this war, and indeed object to any kind of war between nations, because they wish to institute a class war which would be at least as sanguinary as the present contest. We shall all agree that in both those cases most drastic measures, in the present crisis, may be necessary. I, for one, have never made any protest against the Regulation 2D, under which, after full debate in another place, this newspaper was, so far as we can see, most properly suspended rather than by the alternative Regulation 2C, which would involve recourse to a Court of Law and very possibly lead to an amount of publicity which would be positively welcome to the offenders. That is the position. Now it is said—I take no responsibility whatever for the statement because I have not attempted to verify it—that this newspaper has changed its point of view, and that if it were permitted to reappear it would definitely support the war. Possibly, some other noble Lords may be able either to confirm or deny that statement. Of course, it might be said that even if this particular newspaper did support the war, it would not show any real change of opinion on its part, in the sense of its becoming a more patriotic vehicle of opinion, but that it would simply be taking this course because the Soviet Government has joined in the war and has now become an Ally. Whether that is so I do not know.
It does not seem to me to be precisely relevant to the question of the reappearance of the paper. It might very naturally affect anybody's estimate of the worth of the particular newspaper, but it would not, I think, be an argument against its reappearance provided that the line it takes is one of definite support of the war. If it were permitted to reappear, and if its contents again proved to be unwelcome, owing to the fact that, for one reason or another, it was not loyally supporting the war, it could, of course, immediately be stopped again. But in the

573
meantime I put it to His Majesty's Government that, if a newspaper which presumably has a certain popularity in certain circles of working people can be of assistance in the present state of affairs, it might properly and reasonably be allowed to reappear. I say this on the general principle that the complete suppression of any newspaper throws a heavy responsibility on the Executive, and a responsibility of which I am sure they would be glad to be rid if they felt that they reasonably could be rid of it. I therefore beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Marquess has brought this matter up. The Liberal Party may be outcast, but Liberalism, so long as the noble Marquess is in this House, and so long as its traditions are in his charge, will survive. I wish that I could say that I am speaking for the Labour Party on this matter. I speak for a great many of them, but not for the Party; that will be in the hands of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I think that your Lordships must realize that the whole position, so far as the Daily Worker is concerned, has been completely changed by Russia joining in the war. I was one of those who voted for the suppression of the Daily Worker. I thought that it was then dangerous to our country's war effort, and in war-time the safety of the State has to come before even justice and freedom. Now, however, the situation is entirely different. The Daily Worker and the Communist party here and in Russia arc the most enthusiastic supporters of our cause, and they have every reason to be so. I want this paper to come out so that that support of our cause may be published and read in the workshops of this country. It is urgently necessary that the working classes of this country should realize that this is their fight; and, as long as the Daily Worker is not allowed to be published, a great many people will not feel that this is a war for the freedom of the working classes. We are depriving ourselves of one of the best propaganda agents in the workshops which can be imagined. Your Lordships will have seen the Soviet War News, another Communist production. I suppose that it is the best propaganda for this war which has ever been published. It comes into all our hands daily. If that is evidence of what
574
the Communists can do from Russia, why should we assume that there would be any worse results from the publication of the Daily Worker?
We all know that at the present time the morale of this country might be improved. It is not only a question of slacking, but of the general slump in morality which is oppressing the people of this country—dishonesty, taking money for an inadequate return, slacking and so on. It is with that morality in view that I ask your Lordships to support the Motion of the noble Marquess. The almost miraculous success of the Soviet arms in Russia is not more remarkable than the extraordinary morale of their people, a morale which will never submit to defeat. They are determined to die on their feet rather than to live on their knees. Do you not think that it is just as important to get that morale among our people in this country? I do not say that that would be the inevitable result of the republication of the Daily Worker, but I think that it is a possible result: and, if it is a possible result, ought we not in the interests of victory to take every opportunity that there may be of improving the morale of our country and of getting our people as willing to scorch the earth and to die on their feet as the Soviet people have shown themselves to be under the same inspiration?
There is one further reason which I should like to put to your Lordships. Do you not think that, if these people were co-operating with us in this fight, they might learn something of this fight for freedom which might affect them as well, and which might ultimately have its effect upon the Soviet Government? Freedom may be in just the same danger under any dictatorship of the proletariat as under Nazi rule. We believe that, if we can win the fight for freedom, we can establish a unity between freedom and government in a safe world. I hope that by the end of this war we may have learnt something from Russia, and Russia may have learnt something from us. It is in that hope that I do beg your Lordships to consider whether, as an experiment at any rate, the Daily Worker might not be allowed to appear once more. We might even measure its success in the workshops by the increase of efficiency. We might see the visual results of a propaganda which has been successful else-

575
where, and might be successful here—a propaganda not for Communism but for the salvation of freedom on earth.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I fear I must bring this discussion to a lower level than that to which it was raised by the speech which we have just heard. Bo far as this particular incident is concerned I trust the Government to come to a right decision at their discretion, and apply the special Regulation in question with prudence. But I want to make a very short point, and that is that these controversies about utterances in certain newspapers reveal a serious weakness in the law of libel. I speak as a layman and subject to the correction of the Lord Chancellor or of any other noble and learned Lord, but it seems to me that if you wish to utter a collective libel or slander, those libelled or slandered have no remedy. For example, if a newspaper were to talk about the odious practice of ritual murder among Jews I doubt if anybody could bring any action at all, and if he did, people would say, "Why are you so sensitive on this point; what have you got to conceal?" In the same way, supposing a charge were made that a certain religious body believed in the maxim that the end justifies the means, nothing could be done about that.
Take another case. At the time of the abdication, a weekly newspaper which ought to have known better published a long article saying that the opposition to the proposed royal marriage was part of a deep financial plot to bear sterling at the expense of dollars and then buy sterling up cheap. The thing was so grotesque that I do not know that it did any harm, but who could have taken any steps in that case? There would always be an answer: "Oh well, of course we did not mean you, or, if you were involved it was quite innocently," and they would get off. Well now, curiously enough this law of libel seems to be better in France, and some years ago there was an article in a local paper, I think at a town called Sens, that impeached the morality of the clergy generally. There were twenty-two of the clergy in that city, and each brought a separate action for libel and each was awarded damages—small damages, but collectively quite enough to make the paper careful in
576
future. I suggest that in the case of a libel on a body some acknowledged representative of that body who could prove his standing and locus might prosecute. But when it comes to a libel on the Services or the efficiency of the Services, I submit that the Attorney-General—of course under instructions from the Government—might be able to prosecute criminally. I believe in former times there was an offence known as scandalum magnatum, an offence or libel on those in high places. I do not want to revive that, but if the law of criminal libel and slander could be strengthened in some way so that you would not have to prove damage to any individual, I believe that a good deal of this procedure under special War Regulations would be avoided.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I want first to correct a statement that I am speaking on behalf of the Labour Party and expressing an official view. That is not the case, but I am speaking on behalf of a considerable body both of trade union and Labour opinion, which is getting more and more worried about the ban on this paper. In spite of what has been said, I submit that this is fundamentally the issue of the liberty of the Press. After all, that is one of the things for which the Allied Nations are fighting. It is a fundamental right in this country. I know it will be said that the Press is free but that that freedom imposes an obligation on the Press not to abuse it—in other words, not to say anything which the Government particularly do not wish to be said. But that is not freedom. In spite of the loopholes in the law of libel which have just been pointed out to us, I wonder whether it is realized what pressure even in peace-time can be brought by the Government on any newspaper through the possible threat of cutting off channels of official news. Far from being strengthened, I rather think the law of libel is already too strong.
But in regard to this particular case under discussion I do not want to go into the original ban on this paper, but the question before this House is whether this ban should be continued, in other words, whether it is in the interest of the war effort that this suppression should continue. I would suggest that there is no valid reason for the continuation of this ban. It has been alleged against the Daily Worker that it is unreliably incon-

577
sistent; at one moment it was not in whole-hearted support of the war, and at another moment it was. But in the events which are happening in Europe to-day it is difficult to see how anybody can remain consistent. A war which began with England and France against Germany in defence of Poland has turned into a war of innumerable nations—all the peace-loving nations, all the democratic nations of the world fighting against one of the worst tyrannies we have ever seen. Our own Government at one moment were considering helping Finland against the Soviet Union and are now allied with the Soviet Union and at war with Finland. I do not see how inconsistency can be used as an argument for the continued suppression of this paper.
I further submit that no one who has heard anything about the Daily Worker or the Communist Party of Britain can possibly imagine that they would be pro-Hitler or pro-Mussolini in a war against Stalin. In fact I have heard, like the noble Marquess who moved this Motion, that the Communist Party are, in this country, doing what they can to encourage the war effort, to get greater production, and it seems to me a thousand pities if we stop this useful energy by banning its means of public expression. There is however, there must be, some very strong logical reasons why the Government are continuing this ban, apart from the purely hypothetical case such as some idea of not fulfilling all the orders of the Soviet Union or something like that; though if any idea like that were put forward, not only the Daily Worker but this House and the country would be united in denunciation of such treachery. Obviously ideas of that sort cannot be influencing the Government.
There remain, as far as I can see, two possibilities. One is that as well as promoting the war effort, this paper might also promote Socialist propaganda. It might promote the idea of this country becoming a Workers' State. I do appreciate the apprehension that may be felt by your Lordships on this point. But I would submit that whatever the idea may be, whether there is disagreement or agreement about changing any of the social or political institutions of this country, surely that is not a reason for suppressing free opinion and discussion about it. The last
578
logical reason I can think of is fear of criticism—very outspoken criticism—which might appear in the paper. I fear this may have some influence on the subject. One can imagine the state of mind of some responsible official or Minister who has committed a mistake. We are all fallible; we all commit mistakes. Either he will try to excuse this and say it was not his fault or that circumstances were against him, in which case any criticism which tends to pull down this wall behind which he is deceiving himself will be bitterly resented. On the other hand, this man may be more honest and will tell himself he has made a mistake, whatever he says in public, in which case public criticism will only add to the anger he already feels against himself and he will tend more bitterly to resent criticism. It is important to sympathize with and realize this possible state of mind, because out of it the theory has developed that no Minister or official in a responsible position should be publicly criticized.
This idea is beginning to be promoted. The argument runs that it is necessary to keep the people of this country united in the war effort, that they can only remain united if they have implicit confidence in their leaders and that any criticism, unless of the most superficial kind, will produce what, in an ingenious phrase, is called "alarm and despondency." Further, it is said that the Government are the sole judges of what criticism can be allowed and what will cause alarm and despondency. If that theory is accepted, there is some justification for the ban on this paper. But I submit that no democracy can maintain this theory and remain a democracy; that criticism, far from hurting the war effort, will greatly augment it. I hardly need remind this House of the results of the suppression of all criticism in France so recently. I also think it is a poor view of the intelligence of the people of this country to suggest that they can be made or kept unaware of any mistakes in policy or strategy. They will soon become aware of such mistakes, and if they think that mistakes are being hidden from them—that incompetence is being covered up—then indeed you will find despondency and alarm.
I submit that the people of Great Britain must be in the confidence of the Government, that they must be kept informed, that free criticism must be

579
allowed, and that in that way, and that way alone, will we have absolute coordination and co-operation in the war effort. If criticism is unfounded it is soon brought into disrepute together with the critic, but if it is just it can often point out our worst mistakes. Your Lordships will remember how the Daily Mail in the last war, by pointing out the lack of high explosive shells, reorganized the whole system of war industries and materially contributed to our victory. Personally what I should like to see would be that every newspaper published should have one page devoted to politics, in which every Party, according to its strength in another place, should be allowed proportionate space to express its views or to contradict the views of the other Parties, with perhaps a small paragraph allowed for Independents. In that way the public would be able to judge between the different points of view; but I am afraid that this idea can have little support in these days.
There is one last aspect I should like to stress and that is, that we should never forget the potential support we need among the countries conquered by Hitler and Mussolini. It is a vast support and one we badly need. I suggest that it can only be won by convincing these people that we are truly fighting for an order in which men would be free. Good propaganda will help to this end, but facts count far more than words, and I suggest that the raising of this ban against the working-class paper will do more to convince these masses of people that we are in earnest than thousands of pamphlets or hundreds of Ministerial statements. The raising of this ban will also help to remove any possible distrust that remains between us and our Ally, the Soviet Union. I also suggest that the raising of the ban will help to unite the people of this country in the realization that freedom of expression is still a reality and not a pious hope.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess who opened this interesting discussion reminded us that in the previous debate in this House a short time back he had put a question to the Government as to whether it was necessary to continue the suspension of the Daily Worker. I who had to answer for the Government at that time was
580
obliged to reply that I had no special information on the subject, and I would make inquiries. It is therefore entirely natural that my noble friend should bring this matter up again now. I recognize very fully that the inquiry is one that is most properly raised by one of the leading spokesmen and representatives of what is called the Liberal faith. It is not a very grateful task for anybody who has the respect for that point of view that I have, and shares it so largely, to justify the continued suppression of any newspaper whatever the circumstances. Your Lordships will readily understand that what I have to say is said after making such examination of the matter as I can—not in the least because I should find it easy to rejoice in the suppression of any public print, whatever it advocated. But this matter really requires to be stated briefly but in due order and quite clearly.
I notice that the noble Marquess does not, for the purposes of this discussion at any rate, challenge Regulation 2D. Neither does Lord Wedgwood. Indeed, so far from challenging Regulation 2D, the noble Lord informs us that when he was a member of the House of Commons, he actually voted for the suppression of the Daily Worker under that Regulation. Thus we start with the fact that the protagonists of this Motion do not object to 2D, but recognize that it is a necessary Regulation. If it is a necessary Regulation I suppose it is a Regulation made with some idea that it might be applied. What docs Regulation 2D provide? It provides that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is the systematic publication in any newspaper of matter calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution to a successful issue of the war, then that newspaper may, by order, be suppressed. Your Lordships observe that the publication has to be systematic. There is also a provision that there must be a previous warning given. Let me say at once that nobody who understands the spirit of our own institutions—certainly nobody who has ever come under the influence of Liberal doctrine—would for a moment accept the proposition that in ordinary times it was right to suppress a public newspaper because it was opposing Government policy. Of course not. No one would dream of it. It would not be necessary for anyone to plead that he was in favour of the old Liberal doctrine,

581
it would not matter what his political affiliations might be: in ordinary times newspapers must not be suppressed for expressions of opinion but they must be left to carry on, subject to the remedies the law provides. But, as the noble Marquess very truly said, these are not ordinary times and, as I ventured to point out to your Lordships the other day, it may be necessary, and I think it is necessary for the protection of liberty itself now and hereafter, to impose restrictions which are wholly contrary to anything that anybody would accept in ordinary times.
What happened? On January 17, 1941, following a warning by the Secretary of State, this paper was suppressed. Very shortly afterwards there was a debate in the House of Commons, the debate to which my noble friend Lord Wedgwood alluded, in which after full discussion the suppression of this newspaper was supported by a vote of 323 to 6.
LORD WEDGWOOD: That was before Russia came in.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can promise my noble friend that I will not forget that observation when I come to deal later with the argument of the noble Lord. That was the situation. The reason at that time is perfectly easy to understand if there was opportunity of studying this publication. The noble Marquess told us to-day he has never even seen a copy, and I am not surprised, because I should not have thought that this paper was on the subscription list of many of your Lordships. The fact is the Daily Worker, from very early in the war, consistently pursued a policy of opposition to the war. It fomented opposition to the prosecution of the war and it did not conceal its grounds. Its grounds were that according to it the war was a war between Imperialistic Powers fighting for world domination and for profits. That was what we were doing against Germany; that was what Germany was doing against us. From begining to end it jeered at the idea that this was Democracy fighting against Fascism or Nazism. Alike in the selection of the news which it printed (and it was very careful in its selection) and in the comments which it made, it set itself out to belittle and to misrepresent the war effort, and in particular it did all it could to create prejudice against United States assistance. According to this print, that
582
assistance was nothing other than a capitalistic plot against the workers in various parts of the world. I do not think it very surprising that the House of Commons should have supported the Home Secretary, as it did, by an overwhelming vote.
I promised to make an observation on the reference made by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood to the entry of Russia. I must say I find his argument, though couched in a lofty tone, exceedingly difficult to understand, and if it was not passing the bounds of what is right in this House I would even say it suggested some confusion of mind. He began by saying in his first sentence how proud he was that the noble Marquess should have spoken as an old Liberal. I feel that my noble friend Lord Wedgwood needs a little instruction as to what is the Liberal point of view on these matters. The Liberal point of view does not consist in saying that a newspaper ought to be allowed to be published if it is going to produce good propaganda. Yet the argument of the noble Lord was that really we ought to let the Daily Worker have another run because, as he said, we are depriving ourselves of one of the best propaganda agents.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Surely that is a very proper argument in times of war and one that we have to consider.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Exactly. Then in the view of the noble Lord—I do not endorse it—it is a Liberal proposition that you should select a newspaper to be given a free run on its propaganda value. But he went further than that. He gave us to understand that the application of the high principles which were involved in this matter was altered by what he called a situation which is now entirely different. If the conductors of a paper at a time when the country is involved in a fearful war, facing frightful dangers, are capable of ridiculing the whole effort of the war and telling lies as to the purpose behind every honest man in the country, how does it become any better to say that circumstances have now changed and this mendacious and wicked sheet may be counted upon now, like Balaam, to change its bray? It does not make any difference at all. The principle undoubtedly is that in ordinary times of peace you should leave everybody to have his say, however extreme, however ill-founded, however critical he may be. But in times of war you cannot do that

583
and it is just because you cannot do that that you have to have a Regulation 2D. It is just because you have a Regulation 2D that the conductors of this sheet had to be suppressed and it is no argument whatever to say: "Observe the different complexion of affairs; who knows but that these people who so grossly misused the power of the Press at the beginning of the war may now do something to assist the war, and may even provide us with good propaganda." These are not reasons of high principle to be applied in deciding when a paper should return to publication.
Let it not be supposed that this matter has not been sympathetically and fully considered. The attitude of the Daily Worker to the war in the light of changed events is of course a matter on which we can all reflect. I make these observations about the paper. I agree that it has changed surprisingly from time to time. Very early in the war, Mr. Harry Pollitt came out with a vigorous declaration in support of the war, but he spoke without first ascertaining the views of his masters, and within a week or two he had to eat his words in a white sheet in the columns of this paper and proceeded to make an announcement in an entirely opposite sense. At every point this newspaper has simply used the language that occurs to it for the purpose in hand.
I have here two extracts which may be of some interest to your Lordships, and possibly add to your stock of information. On November 8, 1940, the Daily Worker said:
"The bosses of Washington and Wall Street, allied with the bosses of Whitehall and the City, will together attack the workers of both Britain and the United States in the interests of their war."
There is propaganda for you. If I may take one other example, I find that on 1st February, 1940, the Daily Worker said:
"Hitler represented once again his claim that the war was thrust upon him by Britain. Against this historical fact there is no reply."
Are we to understand that some people now think that if this paper resumes publication it would begin by withdrawing all that? I thought it was one of the well-observed principles of journalism that whether yon were right or whether you were wrong you very seldom withdrew what you had previously said in print. On April 8, 1940, the Daily Worker said there was no evidence avail-
584
able of German preparation for the invasion of Holland. It was jeering at the fears that invasion would be attempted. It was the Allies, this newspaper said, who were spreading such baseless rumours. And why? Because they were "trying to prepare the atmosphere for an invasion of Holland by themselves." That might have been written by Dr. Goebbels. The amazing thing is that after the Daily Worker had published this on April 8, the next clay, on April 9, Hitler invaded Norway and Denmark. Yet there was never the slightest protest, nor even a report of that outrage in the columns of the Daily Worker.
These illustrations will at any rate show that we are dealing with a very irresponsible sheet; but I had intended to say, when I was led off by my quotations, that there are two things which can be confidently asserted about it. The first is that this is a newspaper which has never based its case on the justice of our cause or shown loyalty to this country—never. There, at least, it has always been consistent. The second is that even if for the moment it was not ostensibly against our war effort, it has always shown itself liable at any moment to strike at our national purpose for its own ends. The question, then, is whether the Administration is to be rebuked—it was admittedly right in suppressing this sheet—because it does not at the present moment give it an opportunity of reappearing. I submit to your Lordships that the Government are perfectly right in that attitude. As the noble Marquess said, in times of war those who have hampered the war effort have to be silenced. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord who spoke last say that the principle to be applied was that nobody was to be allowed to criticize. I wonder which newspaper he reads! Surely that can hardly be described as the principle on which we are going. Again and again it has been said, and I think it is recognized by all reasonable people, that there ought to be a large measure of reasonable criticism, but it is quite another thing to do what Regulation 2D condemns—systematically to publish matter which is calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war.
My noble friend the Marquess of Crewe said he spoke as an old Liberal. I took occasion, perhaps rather boldly, in your Lordships' House the other day, to claim

585
that a great many doctrines of the old Liberals have passed into the common possession and enjoyment of the whole country. They are worked into the fibre of the nation. They are no longer recognized as partisan doctrines. They are accepted as things in which we all believe. There is really no difference in principle between me and the noble Marquess. He recognizes, just as I have to do, that restrictions are made necessary in time of war that certainly would never be tolerated in time of peace. He recognizes, as I have to do, that you may have a newspaper which transgresses so blatantly and so deliberately and with so little responsibility as to require that it should be suppressed. The only question here is whether it should be let out again. For my part I am not greatly attracted by what I may call this suggested cat-and-mouse procedure. The suggestion is that we should say to these people, "You may start publishing next Monday, but of course we shall look very carefully at what you say and unless we get a satisfactory report you will have to shut clown again at the end of the week." What would be the propaganda value of this publication then? Exactly nothing.
I must not overlook the interesting observation made by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, who said, and I think truly said, that it is difficult for large groups of people to get their rights with a traducer in circumstances where a single individual would have no difficulty in bringing an action for libel. That is true, but it must be remembered that there is also criminal libel, as distinct from civil libel. There may be cases where prosecution is justified because what has been published is not only not true but is criminal in that it is calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. As between those who think that the law of libel is too severe and those who think it is not severe enough, I do not wish to pronounce this afternoon. The twenty-two clergymen of Sens seem to have got what they claimed to get from the French Law Courts. A body of cement manufacturers not so long ago were not found to be too numerous to bring a case in which they sought to vindicate their reputation in the English Law Courts. We cannot however discuss general questions on this Motion, and I return therefore to the matter in hand. I ask your Lordships' House to affirm the view, which I believe to be the sensible view, that while indeed it is
586
abhorrent to everybody of Liberal temper and progressive mind that there should be the suppression of any publication, none the less at this time and in these circumstances the action which the Government took was perfectly justified and there is no sufficient ground at present for reversing that decision.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am not altogether surprised, I admit, at the reply which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has made, but I do not think he was entirely fair either to the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, or to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, whose speeches appeared to me to be thoroughly germane to the subject and to put the case for reconsideration very carefully and very fully. The noble and learned Viscount was good enough to say that he and I were in considerable agreement on many points. It is quite true that we are all agreed that in war-time the operation of ordinary rules even of justice have to be often suspended, but I hoped my noble and learned friend would not say that there was no place for repentance in a matter of this kind. He had a very easy task in exposing the statements on which the ban on the Daily Worker was approved by an overwhelming majority in another place, and I have no doubt that everybody in this House at this moment would have voted with His Majesty's Government on that occasion.
But the noble and learned Viscount, after all, goes back for a considerable period, and the contention which I venture to put forward, and which other noble Lords put forward, is that if it should appear that circumstances have changed the attitude of this newspaper, then, however much most of us may dislike its views and opinions on many subjects—indeed on most subjects—it would be reasonable to permit it to reappear, not, indeed, for reasons of propaganda but for reasons of common fairness based on the fact that everybody is entitled to express his opinion if it is not positively mischievous to the cause for which we are all fighting. But I need not say that, in the circumstances, it is obviously quite impossible to attempt to press the matter further, and, therefore, I will ask leave to withdraw the Motion in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.