The right hon. Gentleman who has raised this question, of which he gave notice last week, has left me totally inadequate time in which to reply to the observations he has made. A great many of the questions he has gone into are, of course, quite irrelevant from the Home Office point of view. He has raised the whole question of the control of the Press in peace and in war. Should the Press be privately owned? Should the shareholdings in newspapers be public? Should the owners of newspapers dictate policy to their editors? All those questions are very interesting, but from the Home Office point of view, they are totally irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Home Secretary last week whether He would take action against this paper. I can only say that this paper is, of course, read in the Home Office, as are many other papers, and my right hon. Friend can see no good ground for taking action against "Truth" under the Defence Regulations at the present time. The House is aware that before action can be taken to suppress a newspaper under the Defence Regulations there has to be the systematic publication of matter which is in the opinion of the Home Secretary calculated to foment Opposition to the prosecution to a successful conclusion of any war in which His Majesty is engaged. In the statement which the Home Secretary made when the "Daily Worker" was suppressed he stated clearly the principles by which he should be guided. He said: This action has been taken not because of any change or development in the character of these publications, nor because of the appearance therein of some particular article or articles, but because it is and has been for a long period the settled and continuous policy of these papers to try to create in their readers a state of mind in which they will refrain from co-operating in the national war effort and may become ready to hinder that effort. It is my firm conviction that freedom of the Press should be maintained even at the risk that it may sometimes be abused. If in newspapers which share the national determination to win the war there is occasionally published matter which, though not intended to be harmful to the national interest, may nevertheless have a prejudicial effect, I recognise that the inestimable advantage of maintaining a free Press far outweighs the risks which such freedom may sometimes entail."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1941; col. 186, Vol. 368.] The House will also recall that the Government gave a pledge on this matter earlier in the war when it was stated: It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to preserve in all essentials a free Parliament and a free Press. It would be quite easy, in respect of a number of newspapers, by culling excerpts carefully over a long period, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to make out a case for saying that a newspaper is affecting the national war effort and ought to be suppressed. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt chose, from his point of view, the best extracts which he could, and I must confess that upon my mind, and I think upon the minds of hon. Members in the House, the effect of those extracts amounted in toto to something very small. But I would say in conclusion—and I wish I had rather more time in which to develop the point—that I am very greatly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been such a valiant champion of freedom of speech both in and out of Parliament throughout his whole career, should have brought forward a subject of this kind on the Adjournment.