My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.

My Lords, this small Bill is a war-time measure, which is designed to facilitate the administration of estates belonging to men on war service who have been reported as missing and are officially presumed to be dead. The position in Scotland is that, when confirmation is applied for (confirmation being making up a title, which entitles the executor to distribute the estate) it must be accompanied by proof not only of the death of the person whose estate is in question, but also of the date of his death. It will at once be obvious to your Lordships that, when you are dealing with the class of persons to whom I have referred—namely, men on war service who are presumed for official purposes to be dead—it is impossible to comply with that requirement, and that therefore the estates concerned cannot be distributed and are held up.

In these circumstances it has been thought proper to propose—and this is the pivotal proposal in the Bill—that, when an application is made for confirmation of the estate of a person on war service, and it is accompanied by a certificate from the competent authority—military, naval or air as the case may be—to the effect that a report of the death of the person in question has been accepted for official purposes, or that he is reported as missing and must be deemed for official purposes to be dead, then it shall be sufficient, in order to entitle confirmation to go out, that the deponent, as he is called in our Scots law, should swear or affirm that to the best of his knowledge and belief the person in question is dead. If there is an application for confirmation, accompanied by a certificate such as I have described, and an oath to the effect that the deponent believes that the person in question is dead, then it becomes competent under this Bill to obtain confirmation.

That proposal is subject to certain safeguards. I will only refer to two, which are set forth in the Bill. The first is that there must be a measure of delay, which your Lordships will agree is reasonable—namely, twelve months from the date which appears in the certificate in question—before it becomes competent to present the application for distribution of the estate. The second safeguard is that, if the Judge to whom application is made sees proper, he may order intimation of the application to the "competent authority" on the one hand or in the Press on the other hand. I may further say that the Bill in its present form has the approval of the three Service Departments, and also of the legal profession in Scotland. I will only add that my noble friend Lord Addison may chance to remember that in another place in 1917, as Secretary for Scotland, I had the privilege of moving the Second Reading of a Bill which, though not textually indentical with the present measure, was substantially the same. That Bill reached the Statute Book, but it was so worded that, at the termination of the last war, it was spent, and in point of fact it was repealed by he Statute Law Amendment Act of 1927. This Bill is intended to replace that Act of Parliament, which, according to my information, functioned satisfactorily. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

My Lords, far be it from me to express any opinion on the complicated measure which has just been introduced. I rise only that I may take the opportunity of congratulating His Majesty's Government on having obtained the services of the noble and learned Lord, because I well remember the many occasions on which we were able to cooperate during the last war, and it speaks well for his constitution as well as for the wisdom of His Majesty's Government that he is here to help us to-day.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, the Amendments inserted in this Bill in another place are almost entirely of a drafting character, and I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to move that they be dealt with en bloc. Perhaps I should say a few words about the first Amendment. It is directed to a purpose to which I had drawn the attention of my learned friend the Attorney-General. That purpose is the simplification of the procedure required by the Bill as it stood when it left your Lordships' House. It may well be that any third party who is requested by the donee of a power to act upon it, may require to be satisfied that it is not such a power as falls within the Act, and that therefore he need not look to see whether the formalities required by the Act have been complied with. Under the clause as it stood when it left your Lordships' House, this information was to be conveyed by a statutory declaration. The clause as now amended enables this assurance to be given by the simpler method of a statement made by the donor of the power. This statement must be in writing, as mentioned in the Amendment, and may be contained in the power itself or in an independent document. The result will be a very considerable saving both of labour and expense.

The last Amendment on the Paper has a somewhat formidable and minatory air. These provisions are necessary so as to attach to the making of a false statement as described in this clause, the penalties which would have attached to the making of a false statement in a statutory declaration. Your Lordships will therefore see that these changes are little more than drafting, and, if I may be allowed, I shall move the Amendments en bloc. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.

rose to ask His Majesty's Government why the sale of the Daily Worker in this country is not prohibited. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House is aware, we have been engaged for some time upon a very vigorous and animated campaign in favour of interning alien refugees and other people, including British subjects. The British subjects who are objects of attack belong, principally, to the Fascist Party. I do not profess to understand anything about Fascism. I do not know what they are aiming at, and I am not at all sure they know themselves; but it has always seemed to me they are something in the nature of political mountebanks, with a passion for dressing themselves up and persecuting the Jews. Apart from that, I cannot see any particular motive for their existence, and I rather share the opinion which was once expressed by Signor Mussolini on the subject of British Fascists. On some particular occasion the chief mountebank here was in Rome and had an interview with Mussolini. In the course of the discussion questions were raised as to the number of Fascists in this country. Some people said there were five, others said there were ten, and others said there were as many as 50,000; but the discussion was closed by Mussolini himself who remarked: "Whether it is five or ten, or 50,000, it does not matter in the very least, because in England they are not required." That is an obvious truth which most people will recognise, though I do not suppose that Fascists do themselves.

My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord into a general discussion as to the activities of people whom he may or we may regard as pernicious. I will confine myself to the issue which he has put before us. I would only say that I would agree with him, as I am sure your Lordships do, that the Fascists are very foolish people. The probability is that there are a great number of them who, when the war came, became British in instinct and are supporting their country in every way. I would also say with regard to the Communists, to whom he referred as stating that this is a capitalist war, that I think any argument like that must bring ridicule in the country upon those who use it, because we have not noticed so far any accretion of wealth to the capitalists as a result of the war which is being fought. But I would say also that it proves how very foolish are these people to whom the noble Lord referred.

This publication to which the question is addressed, together with a number of other publications, is being kept under review with a view to considering whether action should be taken in pursuance of the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by Regulation 2D of the Defence Regulations. This Regulation enables the Secretary of State, if he

"is satisfied that there is in any newspaper a systematic publication of matter which is in his opinion calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution to a successful issue of any war in which His Majesty is engaged."

to prohibit the printing, publication and distribution of that newspaper. It is to be observed that the publication of the matter in question must be systematic. The Home Secretary has only been armed with these powers to which I have referred since May 29, but the House can be assured that a careful watch is being kept with a view to appropriate action against any newspaper if, in the Home Secretary's opinion, it should contravene the terms of the Regulation. It must be remembered that the Regulation was designed primarily for prevention purposes, with a view to checking mischievous propaganda, and a perusal of the Daily Worker in recent weeks since the date of the Regulation suggests that the Regulation has not been entirely ineffective for this purpose.

I would say in conclusion that the noble Lord referred to the fact that this newspaper, by order of the Minister of Information, or on the recommendation of the Minister of Information, is no longer permitted to be sold abroad. I think that the answer to his suggestion is probably this, that people in foreign countries may not realise that this paper cuts very little ice in this country, and in consequence it may be desirable that no publication of that description should go out from this country, although the fact that its real value is so small is appreciated among all the citizens of this country.

My Lords, perhaps I may say one or two words about the statement we have just heard. I am bound to say I never thought the time would come when I would find myself in agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken—I suppose it is the influence of those with whom he is now associated that has mellowed him—but I do feel that the Government are really taking the right line in what they are doing. In this House we always listen with tremendous interest to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because he is always amusing, always interesting, and seldom right. In this case I am quite certain he is wrong in supposing that the Fascists—in other words the Nazis—are not dangerous. I personally am very glad that the Government have seen fit to put under lock and key temporarily until trial takes place that well-known person who is to be what the Nazis call Gauleiter of this country, and that rather more dangerous person,.a member of another place, and another who I understand is nominated as Gauleiter of Scotland. There are one or two members of your Lordships' House who ought to have been similarly treated—those who have been closely connected with Hitler through their families or otherwise. Personally I think that that sort of people should not be allowed, if we have a Secret Session, to be present during the discussion which takes place in your Lordships' House on that occasion. I recommend to the noble Lord consideration of that suggestion.

As regards Fascists and Nazis in this country we do know that they have been guilty of such acts as signalling to the enemy, being in illegal possession of wireless sets, showing lights at night in places of military importance—all things which to my mind are exceedingly dangerous. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, cannot have been aware of that when he suggested they were not dangerous people. As regards the Daily Worker, a paper which I am afraid I never see, I understand that copies of it are now available in the Library of the House of Commons, and I would suggest that perhaps we might have a copy or two in the Library of the House of Lords so that your Lordships might have a chance of studying it for yourselves. I trust that you would not be corrupted thereby into support of any illegal activity. I think, however, that the Government are perfectly right in not suppressing that paper, for the simple reason that it does not represent the views of those who represent the people of this country. It represents the views apparently of an international organisation which will order those views to be changed whenever the international situation changes. As there are hopes arising from the wisdom of the present Government of a better understanding with the Soviet Union, not only in regard to trade matters but eventually, one hopes, in regard to action connected with the prosecution, of the war, it would be unwise to take action now on opinions which to-morrow or next week may be completely changed and may become expressions of opinion in support of the Government. That is why we on these Benches support the Government in the line they are taking.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend below me—whom I am more than delighted to see on the Front Bench—one question? Is the newspaper Action suppressed or is it only forbidden for foreign circulation? There is another paper the name of which I forget, but I think the word "Press" comes into it, with which I am informed Captain Ramsay is connected. If those papers are suppressed and this one is not, I should like to know the reason for the distinction. There can be no talk about the liberty of the Press now because habeas corpus has gone and the liberty of the Press too—quite necessarily—but on the face of it, it docs seem strange that action should be taken in one direction only.

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he wishes your Lordships' House to infer that a certain foreign Power is behind this particular paper and that is why it should not be suppressed?

My Lords, if that question is addressed to me, I will say that it is not a foreign Power but an international organisation not connected with any Government which tends to direct the general policy of this sort of paper in various countries. In some countries we find the activities of the Communists are the same as those of the Nazis and the Fascists. That is particularly the case in the United States of America, where there is no difference at all in the objectives of these organisations in the promotion of what is called isolationism. In this country there is a not dissimilar position.

My Lords, may I by leave of the House tell my noble friend Lord Rankeillour that I have no information at this moment as to whether the newspapers to which he refers have been in any way suppressed, but I will ascertain the position and let my noble friend know on the earliest possible occasion? With regard to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, I would beg him to realise that never in my life have I ever suggested the suppression of any free expression of opinion in this country.

I did not suggest that.

In the circumstances I have mentioned in my answer, however, that may be necessary when we are fighting for our existence against an evil power such as this country is engaged against at the present time.

May I be allowed——

Order, order. The noble Lord has already addressed your Lordships' House twice. Only one speech is allowed on a particular question.

I merely rose to make a personal statement in connection with what the noble Lord has just said.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House if he is able to make a statement on next week's business?

My Lords, for Tuesday there is no business or the Paper except of a formal nature, but on Wednesday there will be an important debate on the food situation upon the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. It is proposed that on Thursday there shall be a debate in Secret Session on a statement upon home defence. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has been good enough to make arrangements with regard to legal sittings which will enable your Lordships to meet at three o'clock on Thursday.