§ Mr. ANDERSON(by private Notice:) I beg to ask the Lord Advocate upon whose authority and by whose orders the Scottish labour paper "Forward" was seized, and what was the ground for such action?
§ Mr. PRINGLE(by private Notice:) I desire to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question of similar import, namely, whether the Glasgow newspaper, "Forward," of 1st January, has been suppressed, and, if so, under what Regulation or Order in Council this has been done; and whether the editor will be brought to trial and proceedings conducted in public?
§ Mr. OUTHWAITE(by Private Notice:) I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the current issue of "Forward" has been seized by the police, and, if so, can he state whether this has been done because the paper published a report of a recent meeting held by the Minister of Munitions, and showing that he received a hostile reception from organised labour on the Clyde?
§ Mr. TENNANTMy right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, and I will at the same time reply to a question to the Lord Advocate of which the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division has privately given notice. I have not yet received the official report of the details of the action taken against the newspaper "Forward," but I understand that action was taken by the com- 802 petent military authority in Scotland under Regulation 51, Defence of the Realm Regulations, at the instance of the Ministry of Munitions. The ground for the action taken was an offence under Regulation 27. It does not necessarily follow that there will be any trial.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWhat about free speech?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe ground for the action taken was an offence under Regulation No. 27. It does not necessarily follow there will be any trial.
§ Mr. ANDERSONMay I ask whether it has become an offence and a crime in this country to give a truthful account of the reception accorded by organised labour in Glasgow to the Minister of Munitions, and whether we are to look upon this as the first fruits of Conscription?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir, I trust my hon. Friend will draw no such conclusion. The Orders under which this newspaper was proceeded against was submitted to the legal authorities in Scotland, and I have their assurance that they were perfectly legal and in order.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Munitions went to Scotland as the champion of free speech and appealed to the working men there on that ground to hear him, and used the name of the hon. Member for Leicester for that purpose; and does he think it is in accordance with the professions with which he went there that this should be the first action after his visit?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am assured that this newspaper published, was about to publish, and did, in fact, publish articles; whether they were in the nature of news or articles I am not aware, as I have not seen them; certainly they did publish something which was distinctly against the Defence of the Realm and dangerous to the country. I am assured that was so. Such an article would be dangerous to the country if it were to be an article asking the makers of munitions not to produce them in the numbers required. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
§ Mr. THOMASMay I ask whether the War Office which alleges that it is responsible for this action has taken into consideration the effect it is likely to have upon the workers in suppressing labour papers and not those which are doing the most mischief?
§ Mr. TENNANTI was not aware until the hon. Gentleman's statement that this paper was an organ of organised labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not."] I am very doubtful about it. I do understand this newspaper did incite the workers on the Clyde to abstain from the production of the munitions which are necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Withdraw!"] That must be not a question of opinion but of fact, which is perfectly ascertainable. If my information is correct, then there can be nothing more to be said.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEMay I ask if instructions were issued to the Press not to report meetings held by the Minister of Munitions and only to insert the official report, which gave no proper account?
§ Mr. TENNANTI have no knowledge of that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, they were!"]
§ . Mr. ALDENMay I ask the Minister of Munitions whether, as a sensible man, he will, not see that this whole business is stopped if he wants to stop the dissension and discontent going on in labour circles?
§ The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George)My hon. Friends did not give me any notice of this question being raised. If they had I should have supplied myself with a copy of the paper, and could have shown the House that this paper has been deliberatetly inciting the workers there not to carry out an Act of Parliament which has been passed by this House in order to promote the output of munitions.
§ Mr. SNOWDENArising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister of Munitions this plain and simple question? Is it not the fact that this issue of the paper was suppressed because it contained a report of the right hon. Gentleman's meeting in Glasgow, and the Under-Secretary of State for War said just now that proceedings had been taken under certain Sections of the Defence of the Realm Act, and may I ask if those Sections of the Act deal only with two offences—first of all,, action prejudicial to recruiting—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not now asking a question; it is more like a speech.
§ Mr. THOMASMay I ask the Minister of Munitions whether the time to have 804 suppressed this paper was not when the articles that he complained of appeared and not when the paper reported what actually happened?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think it is very likely the hon. Gentleman is right; it ought to have been suppressed before.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that facilities are given for a discussion of this matter on the Adjournment on Thursday? [An HON. MEMBER "Get rid of the Minister!"]
§ The PRIME MINISTERI knew nothing about this matter. I heard nothing of it until I came to the House to-day.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIt is tune you resigned.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI hope my right hon. Friend will see that a large body of opinion in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider a large body of opinion in this House that desires a discussion on this administrative action without any judicial action being taken at the same time.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI will consider the matter.
§ Mr. DILLONArising out of these questions and these answers, may I ask the Under-Secretary for War whether he will now consider the desirability of dealing with the "Times" and "Daily Mail"?
§ Mr. SPEAKERA question of that sort cannot be answered on the spur of the moment.
§ Mr. HOGGEIf "Forward" was not suppressed because it contained an accurate account of the proceedings between the Minister of Munitions and the men's conferences on the Clyde, will the right hon. Gentleman see that that portion, at all events, is reissued and circulated to the public?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is not the reason, I am assured by the Lord Advocate.
§ Mr. KINGCan we have a copy of this paper placed in the Library? Or, if that is not possible, can it be published as a White Paper and circulated?
§ Mr. COWANIs it not the case that similar proceedings have been taken against another paper issued in Scotland, belonging to what is known as the Harmsworth or Northeliffe Press?