Page 118
Page 118
Page 118
8
V.-POSTAL CENSORSHIP.
Report of the Standing Sub-Committee (C.I.D. paper 168-B).
COLONEL SEELY said that the recommendations of the Standing Sub-Com- mittee in this matter were to rely, during the period of strained relations prior to the outbreak of war, upon the powers given to a Secretary of State by Section 56 of the Post Office Act to grant a warrant to open and detain the correspondence of persons whom there was reason to suspect. In time of war they recommended the establish- ment of a partial or restricted censorship on the correspondence destined for specified countries, and if required by the Admiralty or War Office delay in the despatch of mails from or to any particular place for brief periods.
Sir Alexander King would explain why it was impossible to do anything more.
SIR ALEXANDER KING said that the reason was that the work was too great. It would be possible to censor the mails for one particular country, but not for more, without delaying them very seriously.
THE PRIME MINISTER remarked that the conclusion to paragraph 10, which was not included in the summary at the end of the report, was a very important one, namely, that the postal service with an enemy country should not be prohibited.
LORD CREWE thought that the only historical record of the contrary action being taken was that under Napoleon's Berlin Decree of 1806.
COLONEL SEELY said that the Cape Post Office had suspended the trans- mission of postal communication with the belligerent territories in the South African war.
THE PRIME MINISTER said that he understood that all action was to be taken under existing statutory powers, and that the Report might be approved.
(Conclusion.)
The Report of the Standing Sub-Committee on Postal Censorship (C.I.D. paper 168-B) is approved.
VI. MAINTENANCE OF OVERSEA COMMERCE IN TIME OF WAR.
Report of the Standing Sub-Committee (C.I.D. paper 169-B).
MR. CHURCHILL said that, for the first time, he thought, in the annals of the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Standing Sub-Committee had to report that they were unable to find any common ground of agreement as to general principles. Mr. Runciman and Sir Robert Chalmers were absolutely opposed to any form of national guarantee or insurance of merchant shipping in time of war, and had found themselves unable to accept the view of the Admiralty that the alteration in naval conditions justified the reopening of the question or that it was worth while to examine the simple and moderate scheme submitted to the Sub-Committee by Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith. The remainder of the members had signed the Report.
MR. MCKENNA said that Sir Edward Troup signed the Report for himself, and not for his Department.
MR. BUXTON said that Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith's views were those of the Board of Trade.
MR. CHURCHILL said that the rejection of the principle of national insurance of merchant-vessels in any form by Mr. Austen Chamberlain's Committee had been based primarily on the naval conditions then existing. In the opinion of the Admiralty those conditions had materially altered to our detriment. That being the case it was the bounden duty of the Admiralty to bring these facts to the notice of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The new factors in the naval situation were given in the Report before them. Briefly they were the diminution in the margin of the superiority of the British Fleet over that of the next strongest naval Power;
Page 118
Page 118