I am sorry to take up the time of the House, particularly on a subject which affects the freedom of the Press. In normal times I do not think there is any more ardent advocate than I am of the freedom of the Press in this country, not only to print the things we like but to print the things we do not like. On that principle, I and a great many Members of the House take a stand in normal times. But in war time the situation changes. There is an old Latin tag, "Inter arma silent leges." In war everybody has to consider first the safety of the State. Normally there is nothing I dislike more than the State doctrine; but in this war liberty, freedom, and all those things which we normally support in this country are desperately involved. In this war the safety of the State must come first. It is by that test that the Home Secretary has to judge this great question of whether papers should be suppressed or not. It was on that test that he closed down the "Daily Worker." His argument that convinced me at the time was that the continued publication and circulation of the "Daily Worker" in the workshops of Glasgow and elsewhere was slowing down war production. If that was so—and nobody could know better than the Home Secretary—I think that that action was justified; I do not say that it is justified now.

It is by that test that I want the House to consider the question of the continued publication of "Truth." "Truth" is a weekly publication which used to have a great reputation in the days of Henry Labouchere, when I was young. It has now become a public danger. It is widely read, not so widely as the "Daily Worker," but very widely in the clubs and messes, by that large class of people who are referred to as the governing class in this country. Its circulation may not be very large, but for every copy issued many people read it. The effect of the continual propaganda put forward by that paper may be very great. Not only is it perpetually putting forward the policy of peace and reconciliation, and generally the old isolationist policy, but it is also, as it were, the nucleus of the controlled Press which would spring up if this country were successfully invaded.

I have to prove that the policy of this paper is dangerous to our war effort. I say that it is pro-Fascist, it is anti-Semite, it is pro-peace, it is anti-Churchill, it is anti-American, it is pro-German, and it is now anti-Russian. The whole House will agree that if that policy is being advocated week after week in this country, it is bad for morale, and that steps of some sort should be taken to stop it. So far as anti-Semitism is concerned, I need not make any quotations; there have been numerous libel actions, there have been attacks by the paper on such people as the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), Neville Laski and Gollancz. There may have been attacks upon non-Jews as well, but these people have certainly been attacked, and in some cases libel actions have been brought and substantial damages secured.