ADJOURNMENT: PERSONAL STATE MENT BY LORD WEDGWOOD. (Hansard, 18 March 1943)

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

§ LORD WEDGWOOD
My Lords, on this Motion may I raise a personal issue? I am very loth to do so, but I was publicly traduced yesterday by Lord Winster, who commented on my speech unjustifiably. I seek this, the earliest opportunity of trying to put myself right. Lord Winster said this—I am quoting from his speech in the Official Report: Then there was the statement that the First Army are doing themselves well, that they have all the bread and beer they want and generally having a good time, but not 795 fighting. I wrote the words down—'are having a good time, but not fighting'. The words I actually used are also in the Official Report, and I would call your Lordships' attention to them: It seems to me that in that First Army we have too much organization and too few fighters. Are all these things really necessary? We hear that they are all doing themselves very well—bread and beer, and canteens and libraries, and welfare and entertainments. The War Office take a pride in doing it thoroughly. But that is not fighting. It is all very well for an army of occupation, it is all very well for trench warfare, such as we had in the greater part of the last war. But it is not much use for a mobile war. In the South African war—and many of your Lordships took part in that—you will remember we did pretty well on biscuits and bully for two years, and we wore none the worse for it. I submit to your Lordships that the words which the noble Lord stated he put down are not in that speech. He put down the words having a good time, but not fighting.' If I had used these words they would have been an insult to the common sense of the House as well as to the Army, and they are not there. What I did complain of, and what I complain of still, was that too large a proportion of the Army is engaged behind the lines and too few in the front line.
The second misrepresentation was as follows: That was followed by the statement 'If you cannot invade Italy, because you cannot take Tunis'—these are the significant words or do not want to.' What is this insinuation? That our Expeditionary Force in Tunisia is a feint, or that we are pulling our punch because you cannot take Tunis or do not want to'? What is the suggestion? That the whole Expeditionary Force in Tunisia is engaged in a sham fight and that we really do not want to take Tunis at all? There again, if I had said that, the indignation of the noble Lord would have been shared by the House. What I actually said was quite different. I said: If you cannot invade Italy, either because you cannot take Tunis or because you do not want to, there are plenty of other places where you could be of even more use. I did not put these commas in; they are put in by the reporters. Obviously the whole sense of that remark was, "If you cannot invade Italy because you do not want to"—not Tunis; everyone knows we want to take Tunis. "If you do not want to invade Italy, then invade some other part, and get on with it." It seems to me that that is a perfectly proper statement, 796 Now, my Lords, I expect most of us, after making a speech, are a little doubtful of the exact words we have used, however certain we may be of our meaning. I went down to the Reporters' room at once to look at my speech to correct any folly such as has been attributed to me. Judge of my surprise and pleasure when I found the reporter's draft accurate even to the comma, and differing entirely from the words Lord Winster had written down. I have no objection to acquiring a reputation in your Lordships' House for saying things which may appear indiscreet when I think they should be said in the free Parliament of a free country, and of that I must be the judge, but I do object to being given a reputation for insulting the Army by deliberate misrepresentation or misquotation. I have known the noble Lord for many years in the House of Commons not well but with appreciation of his great ability, though I fear the wit of his early speeches there has turned somewhat sour in later years. We have crossed swords before on non-intervention in Spain, and I have no doubt we shall cross swords again. May I beg him to remember that in seeking to injure my reputation for common sense he risks for himself a very unfortunate reputation?

§ LORD WINSTER
My Lords, the noble Lord most courteously gave me notice that he intended to raise this matter. I enjoy controversy. I have never before been accused of misrepresentation. The words which I can only say I did write down yesterday, the words to which I refer, were in regard to what was said about the First Army. I am in the recollection of your Lordships who were present when those remarks were made. I think that your Lordships were of my opinion. It seemed to be the sense of the House that unfortunate reflections had been made on the conduct of the First Army, and I think, as the words stand in the Official Report, it will be agreed that they are capable of being construed as bearing that implication: We hear that they are all doing themselves very well—bread and beer, and canteens and libraries, and welfare and entertainments… But that is not fighting. I really think I can hardly be blamed if I received the impression that the First Army was having an extremely good time, and was far more concerned about its beer and welfare than it was about fight- 797 ing. That seemed to be the impression which other noble Lords received besides myself. Again, remembering what was said and especially the manner in which it was said, following on other remarks of the noble Lord's concerning what is happening in North Africa, I certainly think that it was an ambiguous statement quite capable of bearing the interpretation which I placed on it.
However, no one rejoices more than myself to hear to-day that the noble Lord did not intend to convey those impressions either in regard to the conduct of the First Army or in regard to the bona fides of our intentions in Tunis. I think it is very satisfactory that that has been elicited this afternoon, and if I have been guilty of any misrepresentation I assure your Lordships I should be the first to wish to withdraw and to apologize. But I must say this in addition. I regarded that speech yesterday as mischievous and misleading, and as I read it again to-day I find insinuation after insinuation made upon individual after individual, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, Mr. Robert Murphy (the President's personal representative), General Weygand, Mr. Joe Kemedy—one name after another, one institution and organization after another, referred to with some slighting remark capable certainly of a certain interpretation. I must say that when I notice that the noble Lord is always so thick-skinned about other peoples' feelings I am surprised to find he is so thin-skinned in regard to his own. I cannot help remembering this afternoon many misrepresentations to which he has, in my opinon, given currency. I mention two in particular—Sir Harold MacMichael in Palestine and officials in Palestine who are doing their duty under the most difficult and arduous circumstances and who have been made the victims, in my opinion, of vituperation and misrepresentation at the hands of the noble Lord. That is all I have to say, but again I repeat that if the House considers I have been guilty of any misrepresentation of the noble Lord's remarks yesterday I withdraw and apologize.

LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Winster will remember the immortal novel of the late Captain Marryat, Midshipman Easy. He will remember the delightful passage describing 798 the three-cornered duel. In this case I think he is rather in the position of the purser who so annoyed the other two that they both directed their fire upon him with damage which his tailor had to repair afterwards. I am a neutral in this matter. I could not be here yesterday; I am very sorry I was away but I was doing a public duty. I have read the debate very carefully and I can quite see what happened. My noble friend Lord Winster had his feelings lacerated, a kind of red film came up before his eyes; in other words he saw red and went for Lord Wedgwood. We are all three members of the same Party and I want to say this publicly. I wish my noble friend would remember we here are a very small party in a House that is always courteous and always fair, but of course is for the most part opposed to what we stand for. If we begin talking against ourselves on these matters when really we are fundamentally agreed—I know that is the case from my long friendships with both these noble Lords—we only weaken the cause for which we stand. However, I want to say this to my noble friend Lord Winster. He and I have never fallen out on political matters and I do not expect we ever will. We were brought up in the same school. I have always found myself in agreement with him on most matters. If I find myself in any disagreement with Lord Wedgwood I examine my conscience. I have been many more years in another place and in this House than my noble friend Lord Winster, and may I most respectfully ask him to examine his conscience as to attacking a colleague in your Lordships' House with all the publicity and the opening which that gives to our opponents to misrepresent us? May I also ask him to examine his conscience on the members that he assails?

§ LORD WEDGWOOD
My Lords, I am loth to intervene again but that is the strangest apology I have ever listened to in either the House of Commons or elsewhere. I charge the noble Lord with saying that he has written down words of my speech which are not there. They are not in the speech and never were in the speech. I conceived that for that he should apologize, but if he does not we shall know exactly where we are in future.