They can look them up in "Truth" themselves; it will do them good. That was in November, 1939. On 16th December, 1939, it says: Imagination boggles at Mr. Hore-Belisha and Mr. Winston Churchill wondering a single second over the failure of their Departments to meet their obligations. What they would worry themselves sick about would be if their own salaries were not paid promptly. On 23rd February, 1940, it says: Now that the sound and fury of Mr. Winston Churchill has been hushed awhile "— He was not Prime Minister then— when our Prime Minister quits his post in a middle of a war to cross the Atlantic we expect him to return with something more substantial than even an Eight Point Declaration. The humiliating impression is conveyed of the British Prime Minister standing cap in hand on America's doorstep or gang-plank. That was on 22nd August, 1941. In October, 1939, there was this statement: There is only one man in England who, in Mr. Churchill's reckoning, is fit to govern and that man, of course, as you will guess, is Mr. Churchill. That is the attitude of mind towards not merely a man in office but a man who has put up the best fight for us against the Germans. I now come to the paper's anti-American attitude On 29th September, 1940, they said: America is willing to fight to the last Englishman. On 6th October, 1940, they said: For 18 months Americans have feared any European who stood for peace in Europe. The U.S.A. is fiercely anxious for Europe to go to war because when Europe is at war, American industry booms. I ask the House to consider not only the effect of all this on our morale but on our relations with other countries. On 3rd November last year it was stated: Germany is not one of the favoured belligerents because she has no money. If that disability were removed America would supply arms to Germany as willingly as to us. On 19th September, this year, the paper said: While one welcomes the Prime Minister's assurance that every effort will be made to secure a peaceful settlement in the Far East, it is imprudent to put oneself into a position where one's life depends on blood transfusion from an expectant and an ambitions heir "— that is America— Even if America is willing to save the patient, what will her fee be? Home consumption is cut down to the bone. This is a decisive moment in a war, into which, if we had been influenced by their importunity, we should have plunged a year earlier when we were more unprepared. On 15th August, 1941, they said: We are glad to co-operate with Americans, not to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Is this what one would call "helping the war effort"? In connection with the meeting in the Atlantic it was said: I suggest to Mr. Alexander and Mr. Brendan Bracken that the appropriate name for our next battleship to be launched would be H.M.S. Hollywood. There was, as hon. Members know, a moving film taken of the service that took place on board. As to their pro-peace attitude, I will give one quotation, dated 6th October, 1940: The fact which appalled me was the state of mind that had been reached, in which peace itself should be a threat. They know as well as we know that peace would not be peace, but a truce. The basis of all the propaganda against us to-day is that we should be sensible and shake hands with Germany to-morrow, and have our throats cut about five years later. Let me give another quotation to show how they are pro-German. In a reference to the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary, before he became a Minister, they speak of him as "London's little dictator," and say: London's little dictator suggested to Sir John Anderson that he should watch the people who up to the outbreak of war wanted to strengthen relations with Germany. Mr. Winston Churchill on the Treasury Bench nodded his head in vigorous approval. On 24th November, 1939, there was a column letter by Major-General Fuller white-washing, German concentration camps by way of counter-blast to the Government's white paper on German atrocities. Major-General Fuller was connected with Joyce in the Fascist movement. He backed up a book called "The Truth About This War," one of the pacifist publications which came out during the "phoney" war. On 26th July, 1940, there was a leading article insisting on Germany taking her proper place in the leadership of Europe. That was just after France went out of the war. As to their attitude to Russia, here is a quotation dated 8th August, 1941: Let us not deceive ourselves. If Russia does succeed in turning the tables on Germany, it would be she who would issue the invitations to the peace conference and we should be lucky if we got one. I think I have read enough to show even those people who think that "Truth" is the old newspaper they used to read when they were young, that at the present time this newspaper has become a positive danger, and that it is putting over propaganda which is very dangerous to our relations with other countries and dangerous to morale in this country. In my opinion, it is far more dangerous than anything that was put out either by "Action" or by the "Daily Worker" in the old days. In those cases one knew that the newspapers were brought out by the Fascists or the Communists, but here there is a newspaper which, masquerading as an ordinary journal, gets to people who otherwise would not read it.

The question is, What can be done about it? The other day I asked the Home Secretary whether he would treat this newspaper either as he had treated the "Daily Worker" or stop it by means of preventing it from getting paper on which to print its stuff. He said—no, he could not do it. I do not know why he could not do it, but there are other ways in which the same results could be achieved. As in the case of all newspapers, there is somebody at the back of this newspaper. It must be owned by somebody. Somebody has put up the money. In the old days, we knew that it was Labby's newspaper and that he found the money for it, and found also the money when he lost the libel actions.

I have gone into the question of who owns the paper. There are 1,920 shares, of which 1,800 are in the name of Lloyds Bank, probably held for other people as nominees. They are £10 shares. It is not an excessively capitalised company and I do not believe that, with a capital of £18,000 they can possibly have paid their way, seeing the damages that they have had to pay in these libel actions, if they have paid them—if they have not insured against them. I judge from a study of the kaleidoscopic changes that there have been in the directorate that the bulk of the shares originally came from the National Publicity Bureau and the Conservative Party funds, but of course I cannot be certain about this. The National Publicity Bureau was an organisation got up, in 1931 I think, to put across the policy of the National Government. I do not blame the National Government or the Conservative Party for using their funds for propaganda. It is perfectly justifiable, and I have no doubt that in the early days, when "Truth" was a first-rate, respectable organ, they got value for their money.

As far as I can make out, the chairman of the business committee of the National Publicity Bureau is Lord Luke, and most of the directors seem to be connected with him, and it is possible that it may be his private money and not the money of the Bureau 01 the Conservative Party. I cannot tell about that but, looking at the names of the directors, it is pretty obvious that there was some connection between support of this paper and the National Publicity Bureau. That is now a great advantage because, while it is true that the directors have changed frequently, the people who own the bulk of the shares can, in future, change and direct the policy of the paper if they wish. It is really not necessary to suppress the paper or stop it getting newsprint. All that is necessary is to change the editor and put into that responsible position someone who supports the present National effort.