HL Deb 26 January 1943 vol 125 cc757-72

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY had given Notice that he would call attention to the speech made by the Minister of War Transport in this House on the 16th of December last on the subject of marking the destination of overseas goods; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rather feel that I should apologize for again bringing this subject to the notice of your Lordships' House. It may well be said that an inquiry has been held, and that the finding of that inquiry has been made public, but it is to the way in which that finding was made public and the remarks made at that time that I wish to draw your Lordships attention this afternoon. I do not wish to question the Government's decisions on the matter, nor to reflect in any way upon Mr. Justice Tucker's Committee, but to call attention to another aspect of the matter. That inquiry was a result of the debate in your Lordships' House on October 14, on a Motion for which I was responsible. My Notice on that occasion was worded as follows: To call attention to the need for stricter enforcement of the regulations designed to preserve secrecy as to the destination of British shipping sailing from British ports. The findings of the Committee were not made known to your Lordships, in whose House the matter was raised and at whose request the inquiry was granted, but in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of War Transport.

This I shall be in order in quoting, since it was an official statement on behalf of the Government. That announcement, in which a summary of Mr. Justice Tucker's Report was given, included the following statement that "he"—that is Mr. Justice Tucker— points out, however, that in one instance the present instructions concerning an operational convoy were not fully obeyed. And the reply goes on to say that while this in his view did not imperil the convoy, he recommends that further measures should be taken to ensure that in future the Ministry's instructions ins actions shall be fully carried The public were informed that the Minister of War Transport had already taken steps to put these recommendations into effect, and to impress on all concerned how necessary it was that the instructions should be fully carried out. That is exactly what my Motion asked for—a stricter enforcement of the regulations. The "one case" I conclude was the one I mentioned in your Lordships' House, and in view of the exceptional circumstances that brought this case to light I do not think we can emphasize the word "one" too much.

However, I do not wish to follow up that point and if the matter had stopped there, there would have been nothing more to be said, at any rate on my part. The nation could have found satisfaction at learning that an able and impartial Judge, after close examination, had found that—I quote his words— in general the existing system, and the instructions given by the Minister of War Transport to shippers, railways and others concerned are not open to objection upon security grounds. Nothing could be more satisfactory, but the matter did not end there. The Parliamentary Secretary went to to embellish his answer by replying to a leading question in these terms: …it was most regrettable that speeches should have been made which spread unjustifiable alarm among the public, and caused needless distress and anxiety to the relations and friends of merchant seamen, and I think that it would have been much better if the critics would have consulted my noble friend in private before they made accusations in an indiscriminate manner for which there was no foundation whatever.

What are the facts as regards this "alarm, distress and anxiety"? It having come to my knowledge that much feeling had been aroused in a ship bound for Malta at having cargo loaded aboard her marked "Malta," I asked a question on September 29 whether His Majesty's Government consider "that every possible step is being taken at the ports of the United Kingdom to keep secret the destination of ships that are loading therein." The answer given by the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, inferred that, although the men engaged in loading a ship might be and often were able to make an accurate guess as to her destination, there were no direct indications whereby they could do so. I then said I had asked the question because I had heard of this case of goods marked "Malta" being passed into a ship. To that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, replied: This very question has had the utmost consideration from the beginning of the war, and care is taken in every case to have no identification at all as to the destination of cargo or equipment, and I cannot easily accept it that this case referred to by my noble friend has really substance behind it. There is such care, and it has become so much the custom to avoid giving any indication of the destination of goods, that what the noble Earl has suggested would he the most dreadful thing to have happened. I really have no evidence of it and cannot believe that it has taken place, but I shall be happy if evidence can be given to me to follow up this matter because it is fundamental to the whole security system on which we rely.

Within forty-eight hours of this answer having been made in your Lordships' House, I received letters from every part of the country written by people who were anxious to bear witness to the fact that they had seen cargoes marked with the port of destination, and some of my correspondents said that they had already represented their views to the Minister of War Transport. Well over a hundred of these letters reached me. I sent 72 to the Court of Inquiry but several I held over because they were from officials who asked that neither their names nor the letters should be made public. One correspondent who said he had already sent a letter to the Minister of War Transport was a representative of Merchant Navy officers. It was quite clear that alarm did exist in the country. It had been smouldering and it had been fanned into flame by the public being told that a practice which they knew to exist would have been "a dreadful thing to have happened" and was detrimental "to the whole security system on which we rely." After that had been said, my Lords, it was surely incumbent upon me that I should substantiate the statement I had made that cargoes were marked with the name of the port of destination and my speech in introducing my Motion was directed entirely to that end.

I made no accusation against anybody and I referred only to what had been called "operational convoys," that is, to Malta, Murmansk, Archangel and Alexandria. I was supported by my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield, and later my request for an inquiry was supported by two very eminent members of your Lordships' House, the Marquess of Salisbury and Viscount Samuel. The only diversion I made from that theme was to say that I thought that even if this was not detrimental to security it was a great psychological blunder to mark cargoes. That opinion I still hold very strongly. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, subsequently said that a misunderstanding had arisen from his remarks and that they had been given a wider meaning than he intended. But that was not my fault. I did not make the remarks. It was not the fault of any who misunderstood him that he was not quite clear. What caused alarm, distress and anxiety was, I submit, the remarks I have quoted that it would be a "most dreadful thing to have happened" and detrimental to "the whole security system."

I think that his junior Minister had no right to try to shift the blame upon anybody else. In case I may be told that the speeches referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary were not made in this House, I will say that I have taken the trouble to look up the records and I cannot see any other speeches. I am of a pacific disposi- tion but if brought under fire, however indirect and inaccurate, I like to have a chance of shooting back. If in doing so I have transgressed against any of the rules of your Lordships' House I apologize, but I consider myself responsible to this House for what I said in it and I suggest that if attacks were to be made they should have been made here where they could have been answered. The statement in giving the finding to Mr. Justice Tucker's Committee was not given in your Lordships' House until a week after it had been given in another place and then it was only given in answer to a question I put down asking whether the findings were public. I have no wish to be controversial, but as the noble Lord did not see fit: to dissociate himself from the Parliamentary Secretary's remark, I consider the only course open to me is to ask your Lordships to say that the subject was a proper one to raise in your Lordships' House so that it could be brought into the open, that there was every justification for the statements I made, and that they had a solid foundation. I beg to move.

LORD CHATFIELD

My Lords, I should like to support the moderate protest that has been made by my noble and gallant friend the Earl of Cork, at the treatment which your Lordships' House and those who spoke in the debate on October 14 have received. As he has stated, after a great deal of hesitation the Minister of War Transport, who I very much regret to see is not in his place to-day—

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil)

The noble Lord had to be elsewhere on public business and could not be here.

LORD CHATFIELD

If, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says, he could not be here, I think it would have been very much better if we had been able to defer this matter until he could be present, because he is very much concerned at what has taken place and one would have liked to ask questions which he alone can answer. It is a very extraordinary procedure that after we had really forced an inquiry—much to the noble Lord's distaste, because he had expressed himself as satisfied with the situation—the action which was taken outside this House was not reported to this House, but was reported to another place; and, as my noble and gallant friend has said, the answer given by the representative of the Minister of War Transport in another place was embellished with remarks implying that noble Lords in this House had made alarmist speeches. In the Law and Usage of Parliament it is quite clearly laid down that The rule that allusions to debates in the other House are out of order prevents fruitless arguments between members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the party assailed. I think that that is a rule which had better be read again most carefully by those who have on this occasion most improperly transgressed it. After all, the noble Lords who took part in this debate on October 14 were greatly impressed by the most clear and categorical evidence which was given by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery.

Quite apart from etiquette, the charge of creating alarm in the public mind is totally unjustified. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has said that he has received letters from many people thanking him for his action. I also have received a number of communications from people as widely different as shipowners, transport workers and ordinary citizens, expressing the greatest satisfaction that your Lordships' House had demanded an inquiry into the state of affairs. I am not concerned at the present time, of course, to say anything more about that inquiry; the inquiry has been held, as the noble Earl said, by a most distinguished Judge, who has given his advice to the Government, and that concludes the matter as far as I am concerned. At the same time, it would be quite wrong not to say that the charge that the debate in this House raised anxiety in the public mind was wholly improper. The anxiety already existed. The fact was well known that cargoes in this country were being most clearly marked with the name of the ship, the nature of the cargo and the port of destination. There was no question of raising anxiety, but Parliament is the proper place in which to voice public anxiety; were it not so, our usefulness would be very much less than it is at present.

If one is not present at a debate, one cannot appreciate the atmosphere in which it takes place and the strength of feeling which is aroused. That is why a debate should not be freely criticized elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I spoke strongly on that occasion because I felt strongly, but there is nothing I said on that occasion which I would withdraw or which I regret. I pointed out what a help it was to the enemy in assembling his forces to attack our convoys if he could find out the destinations of those convoys. The noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, has told us that convoys of great importance, such as operational convoys and convoys for Russia and for Malta, have the destination of their cargoes marked in code. Why? In order to give them greater safety. If it is necessary for cargoes for those very important convoys to be marked in code, obviously those cargoes which do not have code markings incur greater risks. We read in the newspapers not long ago that a spy was tried in this country on the very charge of trying to obtain information for the enemy about the movements of our ships. There are spies in this country, and cargoes which are clearly marked with information as to their destination must facilitate information being given to the enemy.

The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, stated on October 14 that cargoes for Russia were marked in code. I wanted to ask him to-day—I do not know whether the noble Viscount who is to reply can give me an answer—whether that statement is correct, because the information that I have is that cargoes for Russia are not marked in code, or at any rate certainly were not marked in code. There is another point which we must remember in considering the statements made by noble Lords on that occasion. If you mark the cargoes for certain routes on certain occasions in code, it surely invites suspicion that any cargo marked in code is one of great importance, and therefore one which should be especially attacked.

The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, spoke on the occasion of the former debate of the remarks of my noble and gallant friend causing a considerable scandal, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked for a statement which would reassure the public mind. I myself visited a wharfage in this country where I found vast numbers of packing-cases on which were stencilled the name of the ship, the nature of the cargo, the port to which it was bound and the actual base or aerodrome to which the particular goods were to be consigned. I found considerable concern among those who were with me at this; in fact, two of them sent me a complete scheme for marking in code the cargoes and their destinations, which I sent to the learned Judge who was conducting the inquiry.

The statement that questions of this kind should not be raised in this House because they cause anxiety would surely apply to almost any question concerning the war which might be raised. It might just as well be said that by criticizing the number of tanks, the number of aircraft, or the rate of production of ships, one was causing needless alarm and anxiety to the relatives of soldiers, sailors, or airmen. It begs the whole question when the reply of the Minister to a debate of this nature is to throw back the attack in such a way. As I have said, Parliament is the place to raise such matters. It is the safety-valve for the public mind, and if you sit on the safety-valve the only effect is to increase the public pressure. We were all very glad when Lord Leathers consented to an inquiry, and we hoped that we had done our duty and that it would be a good job done. It is very unfortunate therefore that this recrimination should have subsequently ensued, and in my own view your Lordships' House deserves an apology.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

My Lords, the question of the adequacy of the security arrangements for operational convoys—and I understand that it is only to those convoys that the Motion of the noble and gallant Earl refers—is, I think, already familiar to your Lordships. We have within recent months had no fewer than two debates on the subject. Arising out of the second debate my noble friend Lord Leathers requested Mr. Justice Tucker to conduct an inquiry and that step was, in fact, taken. I quote from the statement which was made in this House: Mr. Justice Tucker conducted a full inquiry, taking a great deal of evidence, and having available for him to study all the departmental papers which he wished to see. I also understand that he took the evidence of the noble and gallant Earl himself, and that the latter was able to put his views before Mr. Justice Tucker. On December 16 last Lord Leathers gave to your Lordships the result of this inquiry. It was, I think, generally regarded in this House as extremely reassuring. He made clear that in general the present system was not open to objection, and he added that it was neither desirable nor practicable to alter the existing practice. And though he said, as the noble and gallant Earl has already pointed out, that on one particular occasion—one single occasion—instructions which had been given by the Ministry had not been fully carried out, he added that in his view on that particular occasion no ill effects to the convoy had in fact resulted. I must emphasize this, for I think the noble and gallant Earl in his speech in the House during the last debate did give the impression to the House that most serious results had accrued from this failure.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

Will you quote from my speech where I gave any such impression?

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

I can give the details. The noble and gallant Earl quoted from a letter which he had received in which a man who was going to start on a ship said, "Jerry will be waiting for us in full force," and went on to add "This will probably be our last farewell." That is what the correspondent said. The noble Lord went on: It was. The ship did not return. She was lost with about 100 of her crew, including all her officers. I do not know what other noble Lords thought, but the impression that I gained was that the loss of the ship in question was a very disastrous result of carelessness. Let me now go back to Mr. Justice Tucker. Mr. Justice Tucker recommended that one change should be put into effect, and Lord Leathers added in his statement that steps had in fact been taken to ensure that in future there should be no shortcomings in carrying out the security arrangements. I think it was generally felt by the House that the result of this inquiry was extremely satisfactory. Public disquiet was allayed, and the object of the noble and gallant Earl in raising this matter had no doubt been achieved, for I understand that the noble Earl himself and Lord Chatfield do not wish to question in any way the findings of Mr. Justice Tucker.

LORD CHATFIELD

We have not heard the findings, but I am sure we do not wish to question them in the slightest degree.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

No, I under stood that. The object of the Motion of the noble Earl to-day is not, I understand, to open this general matter—I think he said so—but to raise one new point which is more limited in its immediate nature but which perhaps has wider implications and which has distressed him. On December 9, in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport gave an answer with regard to the Tucker inquiry similar to that which was given by my noble friend in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl has pointed out this afternoon that the statement by His Majesty's Government should properly have been given in this House, as the question was originally raised here. I will explain how this matter occurred. The explanation is really a very simple one. What happened was that a question on this subject was first put down in the House of Commons—as members there have a perfect right to do—and therefore an answer was given there. Both my noble friend and the Government would greatly regret it if the noble and gallant Earl thought there was any intentional discourtesy to him. That was certainly not their intention. It was merely a question of the machinery of another place: a question was put down on the Paper and an answer had to be given.

Now arising from this answer a supplementary question was asked in these words: May I ask the honourable gentleman whether the speeches that were made did not cause undue alarm and despondency and produce a very bad effect, and whether those who made the speeches gave evidence before Mr. Justice Tucker's Committee? In reply my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said: In answer to the last part of the question, some of those who made speeches certainly did give evidence before Mr. Justice Tucker's Committee. I agree with my honourable friend in thinking that it was most regrettable that speeches should have been made which spread unjustifiable alarm among the public and caused needless distress and anxiety to relatives and friends of merchant seamen, and I think it would have been much better if the critics would have consulted my noble friend in private before they made accusations in an indiscriminate manner for which there is no foundation. This I understand to be the ground of my noble friend's complaint. He regards my honourable friend's remark as a personal reflection on him.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

Personal to those who spoke in this House.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

Well, personal to him and to Lord Chatfield, who I think was the other noble Lord who spoke at that time. He has asked that my noble friend should repudiate the words of his Parliamentary Secretary. This is clearly a matter of a general Parliamentary nature affecting the two Houses and therefore the House will agree that it is one to which I as Leader should reply. I think it was Lord Chatfield who said this afternoon that he thought it a pity that the matter had not been postponed until my noble friend could reply himself. My noble friend and the Government greatly regret that the noble Earl should regard this reply by the Parliamentary Secretary as a personal affront to himself. It was certainly not the intention of my honourable friend, who, like all your Lordships and indeed everybody else, has the highest respect for the noble Earl's integrity and patriotism and knows that he would never take any action except from the highest motives. But, in any case, I hardly think that the noble and gallant Earl's assumption was justified by the words of the Parliamentary Secretary. For one thing, the reply of my noble friend was framed in most general terms. Noble Lords will have seen that he made no reference to your Lordships' House at all in his reply.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

It could have been inferred.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

It may have been inferred. It was inferred by the noble Earl, but he cannot say that he was guilty of a transgression of Parliamentary practice. This question was raised in the Press; it was raised in a good many places. But in any case he was asked a direct question and he was hound to give an answer. This answer correctly interpreted the view both of his chief and of the Government as a whole. My honourable friend never suggested that this question should not be raised at all in this House or anywhere else. That suggestion is not to be found in his remarks. What he did was to indicate that there were some things that had been publicly stated in various quarters and which had caused unnecessary pain and anxiety to relatives of sailors who travelled in these convoys. And indeed in the light of Mr. Justice Tucker's Report it is difficult to maintain that that is not true.

It is probably inevitable that any public discussion of a matter of this kind should tend to arouse anxieties in the minds of relatives of sailors. Charges are likely to be made under circumstances in which the Government cannot or security reasons give an adequate answer. The Government do not complain of that. But it is a fact which we must recognize. It was for this reason that when the noble Earl gave Notice that he proposed to raise this question in the House, Lord Leathers immediately got in touch with him and invited him first of all to come and see him in order that they might discuss the question. He was prepared, as was natural in the case of a distinguished Admiral like my noble friend, to take him fully into his confidence and give him all the facts about our security system, to show him how it worked and to seek his help in devising concrete proposals for its improvement, if he was not satisfied. He hoped that this complete exposition of the Government's security arrangements would reassure the noble Earl and would enable him in turn to reassure the relatives of sailors—which was I understand his main purpose.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

It would have been rather a large undertaking for me to go round and reassure relatives of the sailors.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

It would have been possible for the noble Earl to reassure them by a letter to the papers or by a different type of speech in this House. If on the other hand his anxieties had not been relieved—and I quite realize they might not have been—it would still have been open to him to initiate a debate on this question at a later date. This, I still think, would have been the wisest procedure for the noble Earl to adopt. It would have avoided his lending his great authority to doubts and suspicions which he would have been in a position to allay if he had accepted the noble Lord's offer, as indeed they were eventually allayed by the inquiry of Mr. Justice Tucker. I understood the noble Earl to say that he never made in any speech any accusations against anybody; but he did say in the debate on 14th October: I hope your Lordships will consider that I am justified in asking the support of the House to ensure that the regulations which have been so flagrantly disregarded should be tightened up in future. Moreover, Lord Chatfield, who followed him, said: The indictment which he has made is one which I am sure must fill us all with the greatest concern, and indeed alarm, because if these extreme acts of carelessness happen in such places as the wharves of our ports where the ships are loaded, what is the care that is taken in the offices and in the firms and departments where the goods are loaded and addressed? It gives one the impression that there must be the greatest carelessness and laxness in the whole matter. That has surely no relation to the facts as exposed by Mr. Justice Tucker's Report.

I therefore remain of the view that needless alarm might have been avoided if the noble Earl had seen his way to go and see my noble friend as he was invited to do. For reasons which I am sure seemed good to him, this proposal did not commend itself to the noble Earl, and he indicated that, in his view, it was essential to have a public debate without further inquiry or verification, and he was unwilling to agree to meet my noble friend before ventilating this subject in the House. In the light of Mr. Justice Tucker's inquiries I do feel that it was regrettable that the noble Earl saw fit to take this course. I hope he will not take it amiss if I say this. It would be wrong if the Government alone were debarred from expressing their views on this as on other questions. If he will forgive my saying so, I feel he has been in this matter perhaps unduly sensitive. Let him look at these licensed butts who sit on the Government Front Bench. We are accustomed to be bombarded in this House from every quarter—from behind, from in front, from the right and the left, and we are very often assaulted in very severe style by the noble Earl himself. But we take this in very good part. Surely what applies to the Government should apply also to the noble Earl. He should not resent it if, every now and then, he receives a whiff of grapeshot in reply, especially when that grapeshot is not directly aimed at him, though, on this occasion, it appears to have hit him.

Unless the Government can reply frankly to criticism, I really think Parliamentary life would be quite impossible. Apart from these practical considerations of debate, I would urge the blouse to consider the dangers that may flow from indulgence in wrangles between the two Houses on matters which are not of vital importance. Until lately, as your Lordships know, it was not permissible to quote here what had been said in another place. The reason for that rule was to avoid just such difficulties as this; and it would be a great, misfortune if that practice had to be reimposed. In view of what I have to say I would ask the noble Earl, if I may use a modern expression, to call it a day. I am quite certain that he will continue to hold his view: and the Government will continue to hold theirs. Let us leave it at that, and return to the more important issues of the war on which after all our eyes should properly be fixed.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, you cannot be surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Cork, thought it necessary to raise this question and that he was followed by the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet who took precisely the same lines. As the noble Viscount who leads the House has pointed out, there are two entirely distinct questions. There is the general question of the danger shown to attach to the marking of articles going on convoy. That has been more or less disposed of by the judicial decision, but I understand that the noble and gallant Lords do not think that that decision entirely covers the ground or removes all possible dangers. That is one side of the question. The other is the more personal matter to which the noble Viscount also alluded—namely, that of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport in another place which I am afraid he did not succeed in proving could apply to any speeches except those made by the noble and gallant Lords. Therefore I entirely sympathize with the noble and gallant Earl in feeling that he was not fairly treated by being almost directly accused of hampering the war effort and creating undue alarm. I cannot feel that the noble Viscount opposite entirely disposed of that question.

As he said, this question of what may be said in one House in reference to debates in another is not new. Your Lordships will remember that fill discussion took place upon it when we were in our own Chamber, and it was then thought that the general rule which existed forbidding any allusion to what had been said in another place—a rule which it must be remembered obtains there and is very strictly enforced by the Speaker or the Chairmen of Committees—ought to be limited in this House to a certain extent so as to allow verbal quotations to be made from statements of Ministers which are the subject of discussion here. It was then pointed out—I remember pointing it out myself—that there was a very great danger that if general allusions were allowed to be made to the speeches made in the other House wrangles of this kind would be almost sure to follow. I confess that I agree that the observations made in another place were most unfortunately worded and I cannot feel that the explanation given by the noble Viscount, that the observations merely constituted a reply to a question and therefore must almost be made in that form, can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. At the same time I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that the question, after this full discussion, can be regarded as disposed of, and that the noble Viscount can very soon be free to proceed to a discussion of a more important matter.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

My Lords, I do not mean to detain you, but there are three points upon which I must comment. The first is this. The invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers to talk to him in private, I got after the debate. The invitation was sent about five days later. That does not alter the fact that I had got all these letters which I have referred to at that time. I replied that the anxiety was obviously so widespread that it was necessary to have a public statement to allay the anxiety which had been caused.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

Perhaps I might interrupt to say that my noble friend is not here. I, of course, accept what the noble Earl says, but my noble friend was trying for days and days before he got in touch with the noble Earl. He sent messages to him and took other steps, but failed to get him to an interview. My noble friend if he was here would be able to answer from personal experience, but there should be no foundations for the suggestion that the invitation to the noble Earl had been left so late that there was no possibility of his accepting it. Attempts were made to get in touch with him days before. I understood from my noble friend that he had been in communication with the noble Earl, but I do not want to press this point because it is a matter he can only answer for himself.

THE Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I do not suggest there was a long delay, but I do suggest that I had the letters which showed there was this anxiety before I replied by telephone. My answer was to the effect that I thought that in view of this public anxiety it must be publicly allayed. I have the letters or copies of them with me. The other question was on the answer as to the cause of the anxiety. I still hold that what caused the anxiety in the country was the statement by the responsible Minister that no such thing had occurred (when great numbers of people know it had occurred) and that it would be a dreadful thing to have happened and would undermine the whole of the system of security on which we relied. Those statements coming from the Minister were enough to cause public anxiety in the country when the public knew well, as Lord Chatfield has borne out, what had occurred. In those circumstances surely it is no good trying to put the blame for the cause of the anxiety on to others. I am perfectly prepared to call it a day, as the noble Viscount requested. I feel that now at least I have some sympathy in this House, and I do not wish to go on with this matter. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.