§ Mr. KINGI beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words, "the action of the Press Bureau in restricting the freedom of the Press and in withholding information about the War has been guided by no clear principles, and has been calculated to cause suspicion and discontent."
The words of my Resolution rather suggest an ultimatum, or hostile action. But I assure the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who are responsible for the Press Bureau that the country, of course, is very grateful for their efforts, that the country generally realises that we must have at the time of war a control and censorship of the Press, and that if the country is not contented at present it is only because we believe that there might be some consideration and a certain amount of compromise and concessions, especially in the later stages of the War which we are now approaching. The country having settled down to regard a state of war as one which must be borne, and which it is willing to face, some of us think that more use might be made of the Press Bureau to give us information that we should value, information which we could regard as responsible and reliable. At the same time, it is felt that it would be better if the Press Bureau were otherwise 331 managed, if there were less rumour which is disconcerting, disquieting, and false about, and if we as a nation really were better acquainted with the position in which we stand. On the personal question, I think we must feel extreme gratitude to the two gentlemen who in succession have had the directorship of the Press Bureau, and who have added to their laurels by the work they have done. I am glad that they have survived the hard work which has been put upon them in their office. I trust that before long we shall no more have need of a Press Bureau. Let me at once point out, that we must realise that no great restrictions on the Press are possible without a certain amount of inconvenience, inequality, and, I believe, injustice. These have been very patent all along, and the difficulty with which we bear these injustices and inequalities is due to our not realising why they are imposed upon us. For instance, why is a certain item of information allowed to be published in the provinces and not in London? Why is information allowed to be published on the Continent and then not in England—especially when it is information concerning our own troops.
If the main object of the Press Bureau is to withhold from the enemy information that is important or valuable for him to become acquainted with, why allow the information to go to the public for two or three days on the Continent and in America, and keep it entirely away from the British people, who perhaps are more interested than any others, because their soldiers are concerned? There is a case which makes it quite obvious that the principles of the Press Bureau are not fairly applied, or if they are fairly applied, they are being applied for objects, and in a way which is unintelligible to us outside. In this connection, let me say that I believe that if we could only have a statement issued daily, or, at any rate, two or three times a week, as to the progress, experiences, successes—yes, and reverses, too—if any!—of our troops at the front, it would be a very great consolation to the country. I believe a communiqué on the lines of those issued by the other Powers at war at regular intervals, official statements which would be regarded as reliable and certain, if issued by the Press Bureau, would be of the very greatest help in consoling, encouraging, and strengthening public opinion. I have come to the conclusion, and I believe my Friends in the 332 House will have done so also, that there are certain objects and principles which the Press Bureau has in view which are unintelligible or unacknowledged. Let me refer to the fact that undoubtedly we have suffered naval losses, mostly, I believe, of a not very material kind, from time to time, which have not been recorded in the public Press, and which have not been allowed to be made known in any way except that the officers and men whose lives are lost are notified to the public. I will not pursue that matter further, except to say that it seems to me that the very fact, which is now well known and indeed acknowledged, that all our losses have not been stated, does in itself cause an amount of uneasiness, alarm, apprehension and even mystification as to the progress of the War in the minds of the public which is very undesirable indeed. The Solicitor-General on a previous occasion stated quite clearly that he would not allow statements to appear in the Press which would cause alarm to the public, and though he qualified that subsequently, yet there is no doubt there that with the object of preventing the spread of news which might be taken as cause for alarm, the Press Bureau does stop information of that character very much.
There are two ways of looking at that matter. We do not want to get unduly alarmed, and we do not want to get unnecessarily apprehensive, but we do want the public to realise the extreme gravity and seriousness of the great struggle in which we are engaged. I believe the fullest statement is necessary of our position: that a clear statement from time to time is essential if the nation at large is to realise the actual military position. On the previous occasion to which I have referred the Solicitor-General went further than to say that it was undesirable to allow news which would cause alarm to go out. He went on to add that he should not permit attacks to be made upon the Ministers of this country which would lessen the confidence which the country had in those who were carrying that nation's burden. That principle is a very curious principle and a very dangerous one—very dangerous indeed. The seriousness about it is this, that it has not been acted upon in any intelligible manner. There have been attacks upon at least two Ministers lately, attacks of a kind which I can only call extravagant and absurd. There have been attacks upon the Lord Chancellor in well-known London 333 newspapers, who have reiterated day by day their objections to the views held by the Lord Chancellor, terming him little better than an agent of Germany. Of course that is very ridiculous, but also as certainly there are people who are very much upset by it. I have letters from my own Constituents calling my attention to it, and asking me what I thought of these very serious charges against the Lord Chancellor. To my mind they are perfectly ridiculous, but they are causing alarm in the minds of the people who look to our Cabinet as a Cabinet that ought to be absolutely united and determined in their intention to carry this War to an absolutely triumphant conclusion. How can you allow attacks of this kind—and I might parallel them by similar attacks, certainly on the First Lord of the Admiralty and, to a certain extent, on the Home Secretary—to go on, and say that you are really using the Press censorship for supporting the feeling of the country in favour of the Ministers responsible for its chief affairs?
In this connection I will give one credit to the Press censorship; they have not censored any attacks upon themselves; they have allowed a great number of their own failings and inconsistencies to be brought to light. At any rate, they have that respect for the right of criticism that they have allowed their own shortcomings and inconsistencies to be made public. I will take another incident which has attracted a good deal of attention, and which, as it does not affect the military conduct of the War in anything but an extremely remote way, I may, I think, fairly bring up. About two months ago our Foreign Office decided to send a Mission to the Vatican. I regret it was not possible to consult Parliament on the subject, but generally, I think, that Mission was a wise and very useful step. It was duly announced in the papers that Sir Henry Howard was to be sent to represent the King at the Vatican. Very well. The day after that announcement had been made orders were issued by the Press Bureau to say nothing at all about it, and for something like forty-eight hours, I believe—
§ Mr. SPEAKERHow is this connected with the Army?
§ Mr. KINGBecause the Press Bureau is under the War Office. It is entirely under the War Office as a department of it, and I suppose that as the Press Bureau has 334 been set up by the War Office, the War Office could criticise it, alter it, or abolish it altogether.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understood the hon. Gentleman was discussing the Mission to the Vatican. That surely has no reference whatever to the War Office. It is not relevant to the Estimates we are now discussing.
§ Mr. KINGThe operation of the Press Bureau, which is under the War Office, was to prevent any discussion of this for forty-eight hours. It was the War Office that intervened.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster)I may say it was not.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt might have been the Foreign Office. The hon. Member makes this statement. Is not the Press Bureau equally under the control of the Foreign Office and of the Admiralty?
§ Mr. KINGI was just going on to say it was not, but as there are some doubts about this question of the Vatican and the restriction put upon all discussion in the public Press, I pass from that subject at once. I go on to another which is obviously a question connected with the War Office, not only through the Press Bureau but directly. I refer to this extraordinary way in which the Press Bureau has allowed statements with regard to the military intentions of Roumania to be put into the public Press. On the 13th of last month an article appeared in the "Times" newspaper declaring that in a month's time the Roumanian Government would enter the War, joining the Allies. The announcement was made without the smallest amount of qualification that Roumania would take part in the War at the middle of February. It is quite obvious that an announcement of this important nature must obviously have come under the Press Bureau. It was made with a circumstantial and full amount of detail; it was a statement which was made in all the various papers, and we cannot for one moment doubt that this was a subject which came under the Press Bureau. Not only was it a constant topic in the papers after the 13th January, but so late as 19th January the "Times" had a very important article describing what one might expect to be the campaign in which Roumania would engage as our Ally, under the title "Roumania's Theatre of War." Since that 335 time there has evidently been something going on we do not quite understand. For some reason or other news about Roumania has been absolutely censored, so that we have practically no information, and, though Continental papers have published a démenti of the statement that Roumania would soon intervene, that démenti has not been allowed to be published in this country.
Anybody trying to follow these events must feel a certain amount of mystification and even bewilderment as to the lines on which the Press Bureau is really going. There may be other reasons of State why Roumania's intervention on behalf of the Allies should be confidently assumed, but from all the appearances that we have, and especially in view of the fact that we are now lending Roumania £5,000,000, the statement being in the papers only the week before last, and no explanation being possible or being yet given of that fact, I really think that something in connection with the news about Roumania ought to be made clear. Are these various statements really controlled by the Press Bureau? Is there any line of policy or any rule governing these matters? I have, I think, said enough. It would be very easy to say a great deal more on this subject, but I do not intend to do so. There will be others, no doubt, who will take part in this Debate, and we all look forward to the explanation of the Solicitor-General. Let me say, in conclusion, that I am sure the House and the country at largo are willing to be extremely patient, and to forego a great deal of the news which they think they might have, but they do want reliable news. They do want news as early as other nations have it. They do want to have news which will tell them, not only one side, but the truth. Our discouragements as well as our successes ought to be recorded. And there ought to be nothing that will make us feel ashamed after the War that we have looked the whole of this great issue fairly in the face at its various stages, and that we have met each change of fortune with the courage, the patience, and the confidence in that ultimate victory which we believe the whole nation desires to share. I have great pleasure in moving this Amendment.
§ Sir W. BYLESI have been asked to second this Amendment, and I do so with great sincerity and earnestness. I do not propose to say much about it, because I 336 have already spoken more than once on this subject. I have not forgotten the warning of the Prime Minister the other day when he reminded us of the great gravity of the situation and deprecated petty criticism. I would be the last to offer any observation which would have the appearance of harassing the Government, for I recognise the tremendous weight of their responsibilities, and I am anxious only to give them the most thorough and loyal support. But I do not think that my right hon. Friend will regard an entirely friendly criticism of this Department of administration as being a violation of the warning which he gave us. I do not like censorships at all, especially a censorship of the Press. I believe in publicity. I think it is through publicity that we get at the truth. I think without publicity truth is apt to get hidden in a well. I am the more concerned about the limitations imposed on the Press because this is not by any means the only one of our liberties which have been recently assailed. We look upon the House of Commons, for instance, as one of the greatest of the liberties of which we boast. We look upon the free Press as another guarantee. We look upon the Law Courts, our independent judges, trial by jury, as other safeguards. Those are all precious safeguards, but, since the Defence of the Realm Act, all have been subject to limitations. Such limitations, I admit, may be necessary in war time, but I venture to suggest to the House that, however necessary, they are dangerous, and that we should at least realise what we are doing. Referring to the censorship, I would like to ask whether any of our misfortunes and disasters are concealed from the nation. I hope not; but everybody here knows, and everybody outside knows, that some months ago there was a report that we had lost a capital ship in the North of Ireland. We have all heard endless stories about that—as many versions, I suppose, as there were about the Russian troops in this country. But can anybody tell us what really happened? Either the ship was lost or it was not lost. It seems to me that, whether it was lost or not lost, the nation ought to know. After so long an interval I think it is time we were told the truth.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman will see the inconvenience of discussing Admiralty matters upon Army Votes, particularly as no representatives of the Admiralty are here. I would remind the hon. 337 Gentleman that upon Army Votes the topics he discusses should be limited to such matters as can be replied to by representatives of the War Department.
§ Sir W. BYLESI was referring to the censorship of the Press Bureau, and the fact that information interesting to the public appears to have been withheld.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can refer to that matter, but not in this Debate. The Question now before the House is the Army Estimates. The original Motion is that I should leave the Chair, and upon that the House may discuss the Army Estimates. Anything relating to the Army Estimates can be discussed. The Press Censorship can be discussed, but it is really inconvenient and not proper to discuss matters which are closely connected with the Admiralty upon the Army Estimates.
§ Sir W. BYLESI am indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for your instruction, and I will not violate further the Rules of Order. What I would ask for is a little less parsimony in the news which the Press Bureau permits to be published. Without any injury to the Services the Government, the Admiralty or the War Office, I think we might have rather less economy of statement. I do not understand that the object of the Press Bureau is to set up a dam and only allow small rivulets to trickle through it. I rather desire that we should have a free current of information. I would like to ask who are the "Eye-Witnesses" we have with the Army at the front. I believe there are seven of them, but who are they, and why are they "Eye-witnesses"? We have at least a dozen highly qualified and competent gentlemen in Fleet Street who are war correspondents and experts, and who understand the limitations of their duty. They are honourable men in an honourable profession, and yet they are refused permission to approach the trenches, while these other gentlemen, apparently because they are Members of Parliament, Privy Councillors, or baronets—[An HON. MEMBER: "And knights!"]—are allowed a free run. I think I ought to make an exception in favour of Colonel Swinton, who is doing his duty with great intelligence and confidence. I suppose there are few hon. Members here who remember the letters of Dr. Howard Russell during the Crimean War or the brilliant, stirring, and dashing descriptive accounts we had from Mr. Archibald Forbes of the Battle of Tel el 338 Kebir. If we had only such articles now, England would be ablaze with national feeling, and we should have no anxiety about recruiting. I know the blame does not attach to my hon. and learned Friend who is about to reply. The strictures upon news are imposed upon him and his Department by the War Office and the Admiralty. There may be one possible explanation to suggest, and it is that it happens that both these great Departments are under the control of very able Ministers, neither of whom has been trained in a Radical school, and possibly neither of them understands the principles of liberty which are the very foundation of England's greatness.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSAlthough I do not agree with all that has been said by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, I agree that it is necessary that this Motion should have been brought before the House. I believe the lines upon which the censor has been exercising his function have not been in the interests of the Press, certainly not in the interests of the public, and equally not in the interests of the Army itself. I am prepared to admit that there is a great deal in what the Solicitor-General laid down on 12th November last. I do not want him to give any information to the Press or the public which does not come within the terms which he laid down on that occasion as to his functions. On 12th November the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would not allow the publication of any news where such publication would afford any assistance to the enemy. Obviously, that is correct, but the hon. and learned Gentleman also said that he would not allow the publication of news which would unduly depress our people. Now I totally disagree with that, because I do not think the British people are likely to be depressed by being told the truth. He further laid down that he would not allow the publication of news which would disclose the movements and operations of our troops or our fleet or by any means directly or indirectly imperil the national safety. I entirely agree with those lines. Nobody wants to give the enemy information which will imperil our national safety. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to add that he would protect Ministers and his colleagues from attack.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI never said I would protect Ministers.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew that statement?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERIt is fairer to say that it was explained.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI will accept the suggestion that is was explained, and that he is not in any way going to protect his colleagues or Ministers, or use the Press Bureau to protect them in any indiscretions they may permit. I suggest that in regard to one case, that of the speech made by the Aga Khan, he did protect a Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech at the Queen's Hall, and later on the Aga Khan made a speech attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, and although it was allowed to be telegraphed to India, it was not passed for publication in Great Britain. I suggest that the speech of this gentleman occupying an important position in the Mussalman world was not allowed to be published in this country although it was allowed to be published in India, and that this was done to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the consequences of an indiscreet speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not indiscreet!"] If it was not indiscreet, why was the speech of the Aga Khan not allowed to be published in this country? The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made on the 19th September, and it contained a comparison between the German Kaiser and the great founder of the Mahomedan faith, and the Aga Khan at a meeting of Indians in London made, a very strong speech dealing with the matter, and that speech was forbidden publication in England, although it was allowed to be carried out to India. It was quite right to send that speech to India in order to reassure our Mussalman population with regard to statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why was it not allowed to be published here? With regard to Ministers, I find that the movements of some of the Ministers are not allowed by the Press Bureau to be published. One Minister's movements are forbidden to be mentioned in the public Press. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is it?"] I will not say who it is, but what I wish to do is to suggest to those who control the Press Bureau that they should be exceedingly careful how they prevent the public knowing what they have a right to know about the movements of Ministers. I have a very large number of instances 340 where the Press Bureau has forbidden certain things to be mentioned, but they do not relate to the conduct of the War. I have, however, one relating to the War, and I would like to ask the Attorney-General why he suppressed the announcement that the Turkish Army captured Tabriz on the 6th of January! The Press here were not allowed to mention that fact before the 13th January. Turkey knew that they had taken Tabriz, and so did Germany and Austria. I do not say that this is an important matter, but I want to know on what grounds, and whether it was in accordance with the principles laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman that this news was not published till the 13th January. Would it have afforded any assistance to the enemy? Obviously the enemy knew all about it. Would it have depressed our people? I do not think we should have been unduly depressed if we had received this news on the 6th instead of on the 13th. Would it have disclosed the movements of our troops to the enemy? I think this was an absolutely senseless censorship of the Press Bureau with regard to that particular event. What I want to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is that the people of this country do not in the least mind knowing the truth with regard to any bad news. Mention has been made by the hon. Member who sits for Salford (Sir W. Byles) of the loss of one of our battleships.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon and learned Gentleman was present when I called the attention of the hon. Member for Salford to the fact that he was not entitled to discuss that matter upon these Estimates. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory of my ruling on the subject.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSOf course I will not refer to that again, but I think I am quite entitled to refer to the fact, which is known to everybody, that we have in the course of the War had certain reverses on land of a minor character. Obviously, every Army must have reverses. The German Army have had them, the French Army have had them, and we have had them; there is no doubt about it. Why should we not know of them? There are many Members in this House who have had a great deal to do with recruiting throughout the country, and, as one who has recruited a great deal, I am convinced that if the country were allowed to know the whole of the facts recruiting would be much more brisk than it has been during 341 the last two months. We read in our papers day by day of small successes here, and small successes there. Here trenches have been taken and there trenches have been taken. Here the Germans have been thrown back, and there they have been thrown back. Yet, when, as is well known, we have been thrown back in different places, it is all glossed over, and the public are not allowed to know. The consequence is that people outside the House who perhaps have not the same access to information that we have say that all is going perfectly well, because victory after victory appears in the daily papers. They are not, shall I say, encouraged to recruit, and they do not feel impelled to recruit as they would feel impelled if they knew the tremendously hard struggle our people are fighting in France.
We are entitled also to know a little more with regard to the heroic things of our own heroic regiments at the front. There can be no object, months after the event, in keeping from us the names of the regiments who have done so well at the front, regiments which have made heroic charges and which have stood out against the Prussian Imperial Guard. We heard of the charge of the London Scottish, and what was the result? The London Scottish in the next few weeks recruited enormously, and they could have got one, two or even three more battalions with ease. There have been the deeds of the Coldstream Guards, and of others of those gallant regiments of the line. I know the gallant deed of one of our local regiments was published in the local Press. What was the result? Men flocked to the Recruiting Office in the county town because they wanted to recruit the regiment which had done so gallantly and information with regard to which had leaked out. I venture to suggest that people all over the country are crying out for the news of their own local regiments—the Lancashire regiments, the Surrey regiments, the Scottish regiments, and so on. Above all, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks it good for us or not to tell us the truth. I am convinced that Great Britain is prepared to stand any amount of misfortune and depression so long only as it knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI do not propose to discuss at any length the general question of the Press Bureau, nor even the principles that may be said in the main to 342 govern the operations of that office. I strongly believe that for good or ill, from the day we allowed the First Lord of the Admiralty to stand at that box and announce the definite appointment of this Press Bureau without the consultation of this House, the freedom of this House as a deliberative or critical assembly on this particular office was lost. I want to address myself to just two points. In former discussions of this department I have called the attention of the existing chief of the bureau to evidences of discrimination in the exercise of the censorship. I have never yet had a reply to any of the specific instances of what certainly appeared to be unfair discrimination which I mentioned in the course of my criticism, but I propose to ask the Solicitor-General to-night to give me a definite answer on another and very recent instance of what appears to be very unfair discrimination in the exercise of the censorship. Quite recently, within almost a matter of days, the whole of the Press representatives of this country were suddenly expelled from Dunkirk, and the representatives of two English journals were imprisoned in what I believe to be an extraordinarily arbitrary and even brutal way at the instance of the military officer acting for the Censor simply because they did not clear out of Dunkirk early enough. If my information is correct, and I put it to the Solicitor-General if it is not a fact, despite that instruction under which the whole of the Press representatives with one exception were cleared out of Dunkirk at almost a moment's notice, the representative of one London paper, in behalf of whom discrimination seems to have been exercised on previous occasions, was allowed to remain in Dunkirk ten days after the rest of the Press representatives had been expelled. I am informed that the representative of that journal is even to-day in a position to forward Dunkirk news, not indeed owing to direct presence in Dunkirk, but to residence in the near vicinity of Dunkirk, and that facilities are offered to him by means of motor transit to enter Dunkirk from time to time. Is it or is it not a fact that the representative of one paper was allowed to remain in Dunkirk ten days after every other Press representative had been expelled?
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHWill the hon. Member give us the name of the paper?
§ Mr. SHERWELLCertainly. The paper to which I am referring is the "Daily 343 Mail," and my information is that the representative of the "Daily Mail" was allowed to stay in Dunkirk at least ten days after the rest of the representatives had been expelled. I desire, as a critic of this office from the beginning, to say that the arrangements have been enormously improved under the direction of the Solicitor-General; both in personnel and in other ways the administration of the office is very much better than it was when we had occasion to criticise it before. There is one point, a practical point of extreme importance to working journalists. I refer to the extremely late hour at which communications are issued by the Press Bureau to the London journals. It is a matter of common knowledge that in these days of very large circulation many London papers have to go to Press at a very early hour. Why does it come about that again and again important communications by the Press Bureau do not reach the offices of these London newspapers before 10 or 10.30?
§ Sir W. BYLESAnd then they are written on both sides of the paper.
§ Mr. SHERWELLIt is obvious if a message is received at 10 or 10.30 that it cannot possibly receive adequate publication or anything like full editorial comment. I have a number of instances of this which have happened within the last few days. I will not enumerate the whole of them, but I will mention one or two in order to emphasise the point I am making. Last Friday night there was a French official communication given out from France which was published in all the French papers on Saturday, and, owing to the intervention of Reuter's, some of the English newspapers were able to publish it on Sunday morning, but that French communication which had been issued in France on Friday evening was not issued by the Press Bureau to the London newspapers until last evening. There was another communication connected with the fighting on the banks of the canal that was issued, according to the Press Bureau stamp, at a quarter past ten last night, 7th February. There are other cases with which I will not trouble the House, but I do put it to the Solicitor-General. The representatives of the Press in this country have, as he knows and we all know, played the game in splendid fashion since this censorship was established, and have most generously and very freely and readily 344 responded to the invitations and requests of the Press Censor. Is it fair to the journals and to the readers of the journals that important communications of this kind, which are of vital moment to the public of this country, should not be issued from the Press Bureau until too late for insertion or comment on that night? Even a communication with reference to the recent German new decree relating to the submarine menace was issued at a time which made it impossible for the London and other newspapers to make any comment upon it. The Solicitor-General will probably tell me that the fault is not with the Press Bureau, but with the War Office. Is it not for the Solicitor-General, voicing the sentiments of this House, to represent to the War Office or to the other offices concerned that it is of vital importance that information when received should immediately be transmitted to the Press Bureau for communication to the Press of the country? That is a practical point of great importance to the working journalists of the country, and I sincerely hope that it will receive attention at the hands of the Solicitor-General.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSI so thoroughly realise the difficulty of the position the right hon. Gentleman occupies that I almost hesitate to offer any criticism. I can fully realise what it must be to carry on the useful work of the Department, which he directs, surrounded by strenuous and competitive journalists, but it seems to me that at the present time the Department which he controls has become to us at home one of the most important in the country. The majority of us have personal ties and interests in the War. We all of us have a deep national and patriotic interest in it, and the one thing we pray for is news. The one thing we do day after day is to devour every newspaper we can get and to go from place to place to discuss the absorbing topic and to get the last news we can obtain. Therefore, the Department which he controls is one which can bring untold happiness or unhappiness to those who are obliged to stop at home. Consequently, I think a few criticisms are justified, and there are one or two points I should like to bring forward and on which I think we should all be happy to hear some explanation. During the whole of these Debates there has been no truer word spoken than that which fell from the Leader of the Opposition when he pointed out that the only thing we have to fear and the only thing that could create fear 345 and panic in this country, was that the public should get the idea that they were not being told the whole truth. I sometimes feel that there is an impression that we are not being treated with that entire candour to which we are entitled, and which indeed would make for the public good. Let me give an example which occurs to me. A short time ago there was an announcement in the newspapers—given considerable prominence—of the capture of a town on the French frontier near the Sea by the French and Belgian troops. I will not give its name unless it is required. It was announced as a gallant deed and a victory, and we were pleased. About a week after—I happened to be particularly interested in what is going on in that quarter—I gathered that a place near was being bombarded by the Germans from the town recently captured. We had been told of the capture, which had been hailed as a victory, but we had not been told that the town had been recaptured by the Germans. It is little discoveries of that sort, made accidentally, which shake the confidence of the public and make it fear that things are being kept back which it ought to know, and which if it did know it would bear with courage.
There have been one or two really mysterious actions on the part of the Press Bureau, which we should be glad to have explained. A short time ago in this country, a spy named Lody was put upon his trial. Reports of the trial were allowed to appear in detail: there was even a verbatim reproduction of the cross-examination of the witnesses. Great public interest was excited, and full reports appeared in all the papers. The man was convicted and executed—very properly executed—on 6th November. On the same day the Press were informed that they must not publish the fact. On 10th November the embargo on publication was removed, but at the same time intimation was conveyed to the newspapers that articles or cables on the subject must be submitted to the Press Bureau before publication. What conceivable object was there in that? The trial had been followed by the pubilc. The conviction was known, and the sentence was a matter of public interest which, I respectfully submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman who controls the Press Bureau, should not have been kept back for an hour, and certainly not for a matter of four days
346 Then again, take a little outbreak which occurred amongst some German prisoners interned in the Isle of Man. The matter was trivial, but it excited a good deal of public attention, for nowadays there is but one absorbing topic, and the only thing we care to talk about is the war. This emeute excited a considerable amount of attention. One of the prisoners was killed. The incident occurred on the 19th November, and on the same day the Censor issued a prohibition against anything being published in respect of it. An inquest was held, and the prohibition was extended to the proceedings there, the embargo not being released until the 22nd November. What object was there in connection with the War in keeping this matter from publication? It was known that the emeute had occurred, and yet details and confirmation were withheld until the 22nd November! Again, take the question of the intervention of Turkey. At one time there was grave doubt whether Turkey would take part in the War. The Censor, on 11th September, prohibited the publication in the newspapers of any reference to the suggested neutrality of Turkey. With that I can sympathise. The matter was no doubt a difficult one, for published comments might have influenced the negotiations or decision one way or the other. But later on, hostile acts were committed by the Turkish fleet on Russian ports, and as a result the Turkish Ambassador in London was handed his passports, and war against Turkey was officially declared on 5th November. Yet it was not until 13th November that the embargo was removed and the publication of comments allowed. It seems to me mysterious that, although war was declared on 5th November, the Press was not allowed to publish the fact until eight days later. It really passes one's comprehension. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment, called attention to the case of Roumania. This country had granted a large sum as a loan to Roumania. Why was that fact allowed to be published? This is not a case of keeping back information. It seems to me that the Press Bureau, in this instance, allowed something to pass which should not have appeared in the papers at all. If there was any necessity that an advance should be made to Roumania, why for goodness sake talk about it. I cannot understand why the fact was allowed to be made public.
These are only a few of the criticisms I have ventured to offer on facts which have 347 come within my experience. It appears to me to be a matter of some importance. Like a great number of Members in this House I have taken my share in addressing recruiting meetings all over England, and I can claim some little experience of what moves the audiences. I say, without hesitation, that that which moves enthusiasm, and brings recruits to the Colours more than anything else, is the authentic recital of deeds of heroism, individual or in the aggregate, told within a reasonable time of their happening. If the recital of these deeds at the time may be said to prejudice, directly or indirectly, the movement of troops or the plans of commanders, by all means let them be kept secret until the danger has passed. But after the battle has been fought, when the thing has been done, such instances as the charge of the 9th Lancers, and other brilliant feats which reflect credit on British arms, fire the imagination and patriotism of the people, and they ought not to be suppressed for an hour longer than is absolutely necessary. If you want troops under your voluntary system you must tell the public of the deeds of glory which their friends and pals are doing at the front. To suppress them is, I will not say criminal, but at any rate it is the most disastrous thing you can do to the cause of recruiting which we most ardently desire to see successfully carried on. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept these criticisms in the spirit in which they are offered. We appreciate the fairness with which he carries out his task, but I would again remind him that his department has an intense interest for all of us in the country. Fair criticism, at any rate, is healthy. I hope that which I have put forward is just, and I shall look forward with interest to his answer.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThis question of the censorship is most difficult and delicate, and for my own part I would rather see reticence kept than give away information to the enemy. I should like to see more descriptions published of the gallantry of our soldiers in the field. But it was a mistake to deal with the action of the London Scottish in the way it was done, and that regiment did not like being made invidious, seeing that other regiments were out there before them. But let us know all we can of the gallantry of our Forces. It encourages our people. This is a weary war and a wicked war, and we want all we can have to cheer us 348 up. Our people want to be told of the gallant acts of the soldiers. The public want as much information as they can get, and the Press are anxious to publish as much as they can. But, quite unintentionally, information may be given which may be fatal to our operations in the field. Let me give an instance. A short time ago, in a leading article in one paper—and, as hon. Members know, leading articles are not liable to censorship—an account was given of the guns of the enemy, and there was a little remark to the effect that, for the last eight days, the artillery of the enemy had been firing at short range. That was fatal, for the very next day the enemy got the range accurately, and they knocked down the lines of the Allies. This disclosure of information was no doubt quite unintentional, and it might have had very serious effects on the campaign at the stage at which it had then reached. I only mention this to show how difficult censorship is. The censorship of leading articles should be quite strong, if any remarks are made of any sort on naval and military operations during this War. A small piece of information may reveal a very great deal to the enemy. It is very like a picture puzzle. A small piece of the picture puzzle may disclose the whole plan.
This has occurred before. In the Peninsular War the Duke of Wellington had to retire because of a small sentence being published which revealed to his enemy his whole plan of campaign. That shows how careful we should be in this matter, not only with a view to ending the War, but so as to save the lives of our gallant men as far as we can. Pieces of information should not be given away, even unintentionally. It is not a pleasant thing for our Allies in this War to feel that the enemy is being told what is happening. At first the French published a great deal more news than they do now. I believe they publish hardly anything at all now. There has been a suggestion that we ought to let our own countrymen know what forces we have at the front, and the number we propose to send out. I can give a very strong argument against that. We are the one unit in the War which foreigners know nothing whatever about. They do not know how many men we have at the front, how many guns, or what ammunition. For goodness sake do not give them the information! As my right hon. Friend said earlier in the evening, you can always tell the number of units in a conscript country, 349 but the enemy do not know what the British unit is, and it is very much to our advantage to keep him in ignorance both of what the unit is and what it is going to be. I quite realise that the public desires to know all it possibly can, but still I would rather see the Censor continue reticent than allow him to give information which would disclose our plans in this wicked War.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI have listened with close attention and with some anxiety to the speeches that have been made in this Debate. I am fully conscious that I am responsible to this House for the discharge of the duties of an office of great difficulty and of great importance. I must own that if I felt that the criticisms that have been made to-day in some of the speeches against my discharge of my duties were well founded, I ought not to continue to hold that office any more. Let me say at once that, as I understand this Motion—the terms of which I trust the House will think, when they have heard my answer, are both unwarrantable and unwise—it is based upon the charge that my office has withheld information about the War. I have never withheld for five minutes any information that I had about the War. I have published instantly every item that it was within my power to publish, and I am quite satisfied that nothing has ever issued from my office that is not literally and absolutely true. I can conceive nothing more dangerous at the present moment, when our enemies are seeking by every means in their power to inspire the neutral Press with disbelief in our official statements—I can conceive nothing that would give them greater satisfaction than to hear that the English House of Commons had said that the action of the Press Bureau had been "calculated to cause suspicion."
The great Departments through whom I receive information publish to the world all those matters relating to the War that come within their cognisance, excepting those which the heads of those Departments think, in prudence, should be concealed. I must say that, when you remember that the present Secretary of State for War bears upon his back a heavier burden of responsibility than has ever been carried by any Secretary of State for War in the whole history of this country, I do think it is a little hard that he should be expected to be concerned with such trivialities as whether the news of the 350 taking of Tabriz was held up for six days or no. The statement that I have disregarded the interests of the Press in withholding information that I could publish until it was too late in the evening for them to publish it in their daily paper, is a statement that any person connected with the Press would know had no foundation in fact.
§ Mr. SHERWELLDoes the Solicitor-General deny the fact, which I stated, that the times at which these messages are issued from the Press Bureau are as stated by me?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI have not the least doubt that the hon. Member stated them accurately. That is nothing to do with the question whether I am responsible or not. Anybody connected with the Press would know that I have, from first to last, done everything that was in my power to secure speedier and earlier communication of these accounts from the Departments. Not only that, it is not easy, when you do not know what is to be said against you, to bring down the answer, but I could have brought down resolutions from some of the biggest bodies of journalists in this country, thanking me for the pains that I had taken to expedite the publication of the very communication—the French communication—which the hon. Member said I had unduly withheld.
§ Mr. SHERWELLNot at all. I brought no such charge against the Solicitor-General. I said somebody was at fault; who was it?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERThat is not as I understand the Motion which is made, charging a particular officer with negligence and misconduct.
§ Mr. SHERWELLNot at all.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERTo say that it is not the office but somebody else, appears to me to be hardly just when you are attacking the action of a particular body represented by a particular man. Let me say a few further words about some of the things that have been said to-day. It has been complained that I have no right to exercise my censorship in such a manner as to withhold from the public matters that would unduly depress, and yet it was the publication of matter that did unduly depress that was the very subject of complaint in this House against a predecessor in my office. It was precisely 351 because there had been an account which had been published of the retreat of our forces, in terms that unduly depressed—unduly, that is to say, out of relation to the true facts. Is not that unduly? That is what I meant by unduly, and what I mean now. I say that the publication of matter of a nature that is calculated to unduly depress the people of this country is a thing that it is one of the very first duties of my office to prevent. The idea that I desire, or that anyone in my office desires, to keep information of disasters from the public of this country is one of the greatest mistakes and misunderstandings which any hon. Member of this House could ever entertain. Why, of course, everybody knows that the people of this country can bear disaster as a brave, strong people should, but it by no means follows that at any particular moment it is wise that all the truth with regard to every disaster should be made public. There may very well be circumstances which render it extremely undesirable that knowledge should be conveyed to our enemies of the exact effect of a particular operation which they have had in hand.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERThat is a matter which is not for me, it is not a matter I can control; I have no more power to control it than any hon. Members who have joined in the complaint. It is a matter that has been placed by common consent, and I believe with the general approval of this country, in the hands of the men who have the conduct of these great affairs. It is they, not I who decide—and they and not I with knowledge that I do not possess, nor do hon. Members here possess—whether a matter should be made public or not. Those are matters which are outside the ambit and sphere of my jurisdiction altogether. But there are things which I do, which, if I did them as I have been said to have done them, would appear to me to be disgraceful. In the first place, it is suggested that I used my office to shield my colleagues from criticism. No one has brought forward a single instance of its being done, except the hon. Member opposite, who, unfortunately for him, quoted a case when a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench was responsible and not me.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI have no interest whatever as to the personnel of these things. I did not know whether it was a right hon. Gentleman on these benches or a right hon. Gentleman on the Government bench. I made no party attack of any kind. I was attacking the system.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERWhat I do not understand is how a right hon. Gentleman opposite can be shielding his colleagues from criticism. That was the sting of the complaint—that I was shielding my colleagues from criticism.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNo.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERThey were the words that were used.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHe meant Ministers of the Crown.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERThe words were
shielding my colleague from criticism.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILYes, I was.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI cannot help thinking that the Noble Lord, whose fairness I know from experience, can quite have followed what was said in the matter or he would have realised that my view of the matter was correct, and that that was the complaint, as I understood it.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThat was not the intention.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERIf that was not the intention, there the matter ends.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI was harking back really to the original speech, which had been explained by the right hon. Gentleman, as to criticism which would destroy public confidence in the Government. That was the point.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERIf it was not meant, of course the sting of the phrase is removed, but it is not surprising that I should feel resentment if I am told, even though the phrase may not have been intended, that I claimed the right to exercise my power of censorship for the purpose of shielding my colleagues from criticism. I referred to the fact that the only instance given was one for which I personally was not responsible, but I do not want to rely on that, because I recognise, and no one can recognise better or with better knowledge, that the early work of the office that I now hold was discharged with 353 immense devotion and skill by my predecessor who held it, and it was not for the purpose of throwing on to him the blame—I do not believe there was any blame in the matter at all; I had not the least doubt that it was in the exercise of an extremely wise discretion—but for the purpose of repudiating in the strongest language I could command the suggestion that this office was or could be used for the purpose of doing anything so base and discreditable as shielding Members of the Front Government Bench from public criticism.
I think when charges of that kind are to be made it is essential that details should be given of them. Hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have obviously not lacked inspiration from the Press. They have been in possession, one after the other, of the private and confidential notices which I have issued to the Press, and if there had been any case in which I have stopped criticism of any Member of the Government they would have been only too ready and too glad to place it in the hands of hon. Members for use here to-day. But no one has been able to produce any such case, and no such case to my knowledge exists from first to last. The next thing that is suggested is that I have exercised my powers partially — I can conceive nothing more discreditable — that I have discriminated as between one paper and another. Not a single instance has been given to support a charge which I regard as of the utmost gravity. From first to last, whatever blunders or mistakes this office may have committed, I assert that they have discharged their duties with the most absolute and unvarying impartiality, and that they have never distinguished as between one paper and another in criticism, in censorship, or in permission to publish matter, and I must say a charge of that description, which I regard—apparently the hon. Member does not so regard it—as one of the most grave and serious nature, ought not to be brought unless there are details and particulars by which it can be supported.
§ Mr. SHERWELLDoes the right hon. Gentleman refer to what I mentioned?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERNo. It was not among your clients, was it?
§ Mr. SHERWELLI only wished to make myself perfectly explicit, and I want to deal honestly by the Solicitor-General. I specifically stated that in the recent expulsion 354 of Press representatives from Dunkirk, one representative of a London paper was allowed to stay, according to my information, ten days after everybody else. I wanted to know if there was any explanation of that.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI could not have believed that there was anybody in this House, except the hon. Member, who thought I had any control whatever over Press representatives at Dunkirk—a power to let them go or call them back. I really did not think it was credible that anybody could have believed that that was within the ambit of my jurisdiction at all.
§ Mr. LYNCHHas it ever arisen that a certain paper, either by directly violating regulations or in some way circumventing them, has published matter which other papers, of their own volition and for patriotic motives, have withheld on the advice of the Censor?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI regret to say that that has happened on more than one occasion, and it is the kind of difficulty that you cannot possibly avoid. It is not my fault, if one paper publishes matter without submitting it to me, and another submits it and it is a matter which, in my judgment, ought not to be published, that one paper has published it and the other has not. I have no power whatever to control and compel papers to submit their matter to me. All I can do is this: I can say, "Here is dangerous matter. If it is published without the authority of this office you will have no defence if proceedings are taken under the Defence of the Realm Act." And, of course, if such an instance as that to which the hon. Member referred was a grave matter in which information has been published of obvious advantage to the enemy, it would follow that the paper would be instantly punished. But I am sure the House will bear in mind that, as between the case on the one side where a matter is clearly prohibited, and the case on the other where it is clearly harmless, there is a shadowy and rather neutral ground upon which it is very difficult indeed to exercise one's judgment, and in which one is bound to exercise it in such a manner as to be quite certain that one is not allowing any risk whatever to the people whom it is our duty to protect. I do not suppose anyone would differ from that view at all. But, in a case like that, one is faced with a grave difficulty if a paper publishes without submission, because the matter may 355 be of such a character that, in order to establish that there had been a definite offence committed against the Defence of the Realm Act, it would be necessary for me to call soldiers from the front. It might be necessary to take steps of a far graver and more serious nature than the character of the particular offence permitted. The loyalty of the Press on the whole has been very remarkable, and the Press has submitted with extreme willingness to place all their doubtful matter before our office for the purpose of being guided by the knowledge which we possess as to whether or not the matter should be made public.
Such instances occur, but that is not doing what the hon. Member who moved the Motion said I had done—that I had discriminated, and that matters had been allowed in the provincial Press and not in London, and that there were injustices and inequalities in the exercise of my office. There is no conscious injustice of any kind. That with fifty-one different men engaged in censoring there may be from time to time differences of view is perfectly possible, and kindred matter submitted to two different people may sometimes receive different treatment. That, I think, everyone will admit, cannot be avoided. It is incidental to the human machine.
§ Mr. LONGThe right hon. Gentleman told us a moment ago that this was the work of the Secretary of State for War. As to the work of censoring, I understood him to say that the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty laid down certain lines and principles to be followed, and now he says that the assistant-censors exercise discretion, and that that accounts for the varying practice.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERAbove all things, I wish to clear away any misapprehensions which may not unnaturally attach to an office which is new and unfamiliar, and whose operations are imperfectly understood. What I meant to say was this: Directions are given from the Foreign Office, the War Office, the Admiralty, and other great Departments, and they are directions which the Censors have to carry out. What I mean is that if you put the same directions before fifty-one different men, the way in which they will carry out these directions upon certain doubtful matters will vary occasionally. That is all that happens. I do not desire 356 to dissociate myself from the men who perform the work. The zeal, fidelity, and loyalty with which the men have discharged this thankless task under my direction—many of them without any remuneration of any sort or kind, working from morning till night—the way in which they have done the work will, I think, win the admiration and approval of anyone who is acquainted with what has been done, and I must say it seems to me harsh beyond expression that such trifling and accidental occurrences as happen now and then, and do no harm to any person, except it may be to some newspaper that loses two or three lines of matter, should be made the foundation of a charge of injustice in the exercise of the powers which I hold.
There are several other definite matters which have been mentioned, and with which possibly I ought to deal. It has been said that there was irregularity in dealing with the situation in Rumania. Surely hon. Members must realise that the political sky changes almost from hour to hour, that the conduct and discussion of foreign relations at this moment are extremely delicate and difficult things, and that if it is desired by the office which at this moment is entrusted with the charge of these affairs that directions should be given which change from time to time, it is a little thing surely for people to submit to when they understand what is the aim it is desired to reach. It has certainly nothing to do with me—nothing whatever. I issue these instructions as they come to me, and I do my best to see that they are obeyed, and to say that I am responsible for the political situation in Rumania, and to say that the people who have, charge of Rumanian affairs may say that what could be said to-day may be unwise to-morrow, is to put upon me burdens which I have no right to carry. What I am responsible for is the fair, just and impartial administration of my duty in accordance with the directions which I receive from the different Departments. If anyone can bring a case to show that that has not been done, I would be glad to hear it stated, because I am satisfied that it would be due to a mistake which I should be too anxious to rectify, and also because it might help me to see the flaw in the administration of this office which I should be glad to amend. After all, in times like these, is anyone to infer that because news of an event is postponed for a few days, and because events which are ultimately published are withheld 357 from publication for six or thirteen days, this is because of unfair treatment?
Then it was said that I repressed publication of individual deeds of heroism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only that, but the War Office themselves sanctioned, and I published on 5th December, a regulation which provides that individual cases of gallantry may be mentioned at once, as well as the unit to which the individual belonged. That has been before the Press people since then, and they must have given information to the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate to-night as to what has been done in the last two months. During the whole of that time there has been no restriction whatever on the publication of those individual acts immediately after they have occurred; nor have I ever censored any such matter unless it was associated with statements, the knowledge of which would be of advantage to the enemy.
There are sometimes in the course of Debate, incidents which have an element of humour, and I could not help feeling a little, amused when I heard the hon. Member who seconded this Amendment complain of the vapid and ineffectual nature of the material that came over from the front, and of the unsatisfactory nature of the person who discharges the duties of my office, and in the next breath culogise the very man who is responsible for the work. After all, if this office imposes hardships and difficulties upon the people of this country, surely they are only part of the hardships and difficulties which we ought, all of us, to be glad to bear. There are two sides to the account which you have to consider. On the one side there is the possibility that the papers might make their columns a little more full if they had the opportunity of enabling people to be gratified by reading glowing accounts of the events which have just taken place. That is one side of the account. The other side is this: that you may disclose the scheme of the men who have charge of your affairs, and that these men may be misunderstood. You will have their aims thwarted, and you will make even yet longer the long black list of casualties—every name in which strikes like a stab into someone's heart.
In ordinary circumstances, if this Amendment were accepted by the House, it would mean censure upon the Minister responsible for the office attacked—a burden very grievous for any man to bear in his political life. I trust the House will not think me lacking in respect if I say 358 that at this moment such a consideration appears to me slight and unimportant compared with far bigger things that this Amendment involves. If this Amendment were carried, or if it could be said that the House of Commons expressed in any way approval of its terms, I can only say to you from the intimate knowledge I have of what is going on in the German Press that no one would be more pleased than they. For weeks past they have been doing all in their power to discredit our official news. They have been striving by every means to let neutral countries think that you cannot trust what we say, and they would have the added advantage of producing with all the rich embroidery they know so well how to make, the statement that the House of Commons had said that the action of the Press Bureau had been calculated to cause suspicion. You will do that and you will also do something more. You will impair the credit and stability of this office, and by doing that you will weaken the protection, slight, inefficient and imperfect as I feel it to be, but none the less, definite and real, which my office has been able to afford to our men, locked with the enemy in long and bloody fight. For these reasons I beg of the House, without pause and without division, to express their unanimous disapproval of the terms in which this Motion has been framed.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI would like to say, with all respect and all good feeling to the hon and learned Gentleman, that I am sure he entirely misunderstood the whole tone of the criticism on both sides. I have never listened to a Debate in which a Minister was nominally under criticism in which there was less of personal feeling than was the case here, and I would really ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and any other Minister to bear in mind what is the situation from the point of view of Members of the House who are not Ministers. There never was a position in which the House of Commons, to the ordinary House of Commons Member, was so uninteresting as it is to-day. We feel that we have a certain function to perform. Part of that function is criticism. But we all know that by the terms under which we were pledged, by the very conditions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, we must stop short at the very point where criticism becomes effective, and that therefore, it loses all its value. As I understood the remarks which were made, and I am perfectly sure that the 359 hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that I am making mine in that spirit, what was meant was not that he had done anything wrong, or that there was any attack on him, but that some things were done in the Press censorship which we would like to see altered and that he, as representing the Government, was the only person to whom the criticism could be directed. I am quite sure that that was the intention, and if everything else was done, I am quite sure that no hon. Gentleman would have wished it.
From that point of view are not we in a rather unfortunate position? We do think that things are not quite as well as they might be. I do not go any further than that. What do we find? That the hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that for most of these things he is not responsible. We knew that before, but what are we to do? This is a War Office debate. Somebody is responsible for the general censorship of the Press. Take, for example, the case referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I do not know whether there is any foundation for it at all, but it would be a very serious thing for a newspaper to find its representative driven out of Dunkirk while the representative of another paper was allowed to stay there. Of course nobody suggests that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, but, if it is true, then somebody is responsible, and somebody in this House ought to be prepared to say that a matter of the kind would not occur again. That, in my opinion, is the nature of the criticism which we all make. I know perfectly well that it is extremely difficult to get even defects of that kind remedied, but I am assured that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes them to be remedied, and I am assured that this House does not in any degree desire to attack either him or any other Member of the Government by anything which it says in regard to this matter.
I felt from the beginning of this War that, so far as I could judge, as much information was not being given as might be given without damaging the national interests. Take, for instance, one subject that was raised by both the hon. Gentlemen who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion, They dwelt upon the view that nothing could be worse in the long run for this country than that our official news should be discredited. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself, 360 in the last sentences which he addressed, pointed out quite clearly that the great object of our enemy is to discredit our news, but they will never succeed if we ourselves take care that there is no ground for it. I am not going to say that there is any ground, but at the beginning of this Session, I expressed in the strongest terms in my power the belief that, though it might easily be necessary not to give information about an event at the time when it happened, nothing could be worse for this country than to do what the Japanese in different conditions deliberately did—conceal disasters until the end of the War. I expressed that view, and the Prime Minister who came after me said that he entirely agreed. I am sure that that is right. I do not say that there has been any concealment but, so far as I am concerned, I say that the one thing necessary is to let the country trust our news and to let the people of this country and other countries feel that the official news of our Government is true and can be relied upon.
The other general question which was raised was as to the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Member about damaging Ministers who are carrying on the War. He gave, as I was sure he would, an explanation of what he meant which was perfectly satisfactory to me. He admitted, and the Home Secretary endorses it, that the Press Bureau must never in any circumstances be used to protect Ministers from criticism which damaged them. Surely the Whole House accepts that. Otherwise there is an end to the kind of Government to which we are accustomed. Take the case referred to by my hon. Friend behind me. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here; I am not going to attack him in any degree, but I think that it is a case where the natural tendency of power to grow may easily take a direction which it ought not to take. I do not go with my hon. Friend in what he said, and what I have seen elsewhere, about the impression made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that speech. I happened to turn it up, and as I understood him it amounted to this, that since Mahomet nobody had ever claimed to be the vicegerent of the Almighty. I think that that is all that the words mean. No Mahomedan would deny that Mahomet did claim to be the vicegerent of the Almighty. I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant no offence, and, taking them quite 361 literally there was no offence in his words. But what happens? His speech dealing with that is published in India which, if there is any ground for concealing this on account of the War, is the place where it ought to be concealed, but it is not allowed to be published in London. I do not say for a moment that that was done to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the question arises, Why was it done? Of course it was not done by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has told us that he received instructions from the Government Departments. I do not suggest that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do suggest that there is danger that a Department should be sending instructions to him not to put in a thing like that simply because it might be damaging to a Minister.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI think it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should know that I have always asserted that the question of stopping criticism is not for any Government Department. That is a matter which rests solely with myself, and I have never exercised such a power.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWHow can you draw the line? If the Government Department say that to circulate information is bad for the conduct of the War, how are you going to act then?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERIf it is a matter of criticism I should exercise entirely my own judgment.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWhat is criticism?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERThat is a different matter.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAll I am trying to express is that where a power of that kind is given it grows. It is exercised by more and more people, and there is a danger that it may be used for purposes for which the Government would not willingly have it used. The really important matter is whether or not it would be possible and right to have a little more news of what is happening in the War. I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will give us credit—and I think we have more or less deserved it—for not desiring to hamper the Government as a whole. The last thing we would do would be to say anything which could by any possibility make the task of the Secretary of State more anxious. Nobody realises more than we do how colossal his task is. What is more—I say this readily—that if it comes to 362 the judgment of the Secretary of War as against the judgment of any other individual, I should without hesitation accept the decision of the Secretary for War. At the time of the Ypres battle I, and probably others, desired that the news might be a little more interesting and even a little interesting later. I remember that I rather urged, and I did it on behalf of the whole party, that it would be desirable if we could to get more news, and we were told that the Commander-in-Chief of the French forces said there ought not to be more news. I accepted that absolutely, and I state to-night now that settled it. The English Army is only part of a larger and bigger force, and if they cannot give more information, I certainly accept that. It is not that kind of thing I am going to press to-night. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion made a proposal, not a very big one, which, as it happened, I made privately some months ago, and I am going to endorse what he said publicly now. I think it would be of great advantage if a bulletin, not every day, but every second or third day, were sent from our front similar to the bulletin now sent by the French. That certainly could be done under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, and nobody could say that there could be anything damaging in such a message which comes with the direct approval of the man in command of our Army. I should be pleased if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give attention to the fact that if it could be sent we should be glad to have that carried out. There is only one other way in which to have more news given without danger and certainly without going against the wishes of the French Government. I wonder if the House realises what a tremendous event the battle of Ypres was. We had bigger losses in that battle than in almost any battle in which purely British troops have been engaged. I think that a larger number of British troops, a great deal larger, were actually engaged in the terrible fight against overwhelming odds, out of which we came with tremendous honour. We had a larger number of British troops engaged than had even been engaged in any battle in the history of our country. All the account of it is contained in Sir John French's dispatch. Surely now the country might know more about that.
I saw in the "Times" the other day an account of the battle of Soissons, given 363 by a correspondent permitted to go to the front by General Joffre; and I am quite sure that if permission were given to reporters in this country to go to the front to get what they can of the battle of Ypres and write a similar account here, it would be of great advantage to recruiting. That is the kind of thing that ought to be done. I agree with my Noble Friend that secrets should be kept if their publication would injure the public; but, on the other hand, in a democratic country like ours, when we are engaged in a war which may be a long war, one of the real factors in the fight is the feeling of the people as a whole towards it, and they ought to be informed. I think whoever is in charge should supply news without possibility of damage, and should also bear in mind the great necessity of keeping our people as informed as they can of everything that has happened, and of what this struggle means to them in every direction. I do hope that when I read my words to-morrow that it will not be possible for me or anyone to say that I have been stating that which could make the task of the Secretary of State for War more difficult. That is not stating the case at anything like its value. The head of the War Office has a more difficult task than has fallen to any of his predecessors. We are beginning as a nation to realise what a terrible struggle this is, and we are realising too that we are by no means through it. It is a terrible struggle. The great responsibility of this land war rests on the Minister of War, and I should certainly regret more than anything that could happen to me under such conditions, if I, or the party which I now represent, were to do anything to make the national position or the difficulties greater than they are.
Sir HENRY DALZIELI had not intended taking part in this Debate, but after the speech of the Solicitor-General I would ask the indulgence of the House for a very few minutes. Let me say as a great admirer and supporter of his, as I am sure we all are, that I think he has taken this Debate to-night much too personally and much too seriously. Everyone knows that the Solicitor-General is a gentleman of the highest honour, and any suggestion that he had not acted fairly in this matter would be immediately resented by the whole House. I must say, considering the few opportunities we have for discussion, and considering that there is a censorship, 364 I think the Solicitor-General might have spared us those suggestions of increased casualties and stabs in the back, and that sort of rhetoric which he gave us to-night. I think it was hardly fair to the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. In the first place, he will not suggest that any Member in any part of the House or any man outside the House asks that the Government should do anything which by the greatest stretch of imagination could give information to the enemy, which they otherwise would not have. So therefore I think the Government and the Solicitor-General ought to recognise that when Members of this House take part in a Debate of this kind they are actuated by as high motives and by as great dictates of patriotism as any Member who sits on the Government Bench. It is, I think, common ground, that we are all striving for the same cause, but thank heaven, the day has not yet come when even in time of war a Member of Parliament is afraid to make a suggestion even to a strong Government.
To my mind the whole difficulty which the House has laboured under from the beginning, with regard to this question has been due to the fact that as the Press Bureau was an innovation, as it was bound to be, consequently it was all the more important that the House of Commons should be consulted about it, as it never was. A proposal of this kind, which after all goes a very long way in regard to the general dissemination of news, was one about which the House of Commons ought to have been consulted. At the present moment how do we stand? I suppose I ought to know as much about these things as most hon. Members, but at present, even I do not know the powers of the censorship. The Members of the House of Commons have never had placed before them a document stating the powers of the censorship. So far as we can understand it, the censorship is an issuing house of statements which the departments wish to have published. That is its first duty, I think.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERIf the right hon. Gentleman would kindly look at the answer I gave on the 26th November, 1914, he will find, I believe, a full and perfectly exact description.
Sir H. DALZIELIt is all very well to refer to a reply to a question, but with great respect to the Solicitor-General, the censorship was instituted a long time 365 before he was handling the questions with regard to it, and I think in a matter of this kind hon. Members should not be compelled to hunt up answers to Ministers. I think we ought to have had at the commencement a White Paper, telling us exactly what the powers of the censorship are, and how, in their opinion, they ought to be exercised. To-night the Solicitor-General quoted from a paper of instructions to the Press Bureau.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI quoted from a communication from my office to the Press.
Sir H. DALZIELThen I misunderstood, as I thought he quoted from instructions given to his Department.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERNo.
Sir H. DALZIELThen the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted from instructions to the Press generally, and it is a public document which we cannot complain of. I repeat, that in a matter of this kind, the House of Commons at the commencement should have had more information of how the censorship was to be worked and of how the whole thing was to be met. Speaking generally, and considering everything, including the novelty of the thing, and that we have never had a censorship in this country in living memory, I think the censorship has worked very well, but I am bound to say that if they had started at the commencement with the idea that the Press of this country were as patriotic as they were themselves, and as anxious to help them, and if they had from the very first day appointed a committee of experienced journalists, I think they would probably have avoided some of the pitfalls. I am glad to say that the position has now been considerably rectified, and that they are having the advice of men which has been of some assistance to them. What is the effect of this Debate to-night? Let me say in passing that busy though they are, I think it would have been more complimentary to this Debate and to the House of Commons if some official of the War Office and of the Admiralty had been present during the Debate, because they are concerned, and I think they ought to hear what Members have to say on the subject. I think that any suggestions put forward to-night ought to be considered by those who are responsible. We know of course that the Solicitor-General has no power, but perhaps he will carry on the suggestions.
366 I desire to support the suggestion that has been made to-night, and on previous occasions, with regard to the giving of information as to the brave deeds of the War, and I think that the Government ought to consider that matter. We never get any indication that any suggestions made by Members are going to be considered, and probably we will not be more successful to-night. It is obvious as the result of this Debate, representing as we do the public outside, that there is a strong desire for more information about individual regiments and what they are doing at the front. They will not trust the Press, and there may be difficulties about correspondents, although I do not see why, but why cannot they have a second eye-witness who would describe after the event, when there could be no possible point of giving information to the enemy, say a month afterwards if you like, the great deeds of different regiments at the front. It would have an enormous effect on recruiting, and it would let the public know what is going on. They would follow it with interest, because their information at the present moment is very little indeed. It is impossible to carry on a great war of this kind in camera. Great charges and great battles have been taken part in by some of our best regiments, and we know nothing about them until some months afterwards, probably when the casualty lists are published, or some indication is given with regard to wounded soldiers. I know a case where one of our bravest generals wrote to the person in charge of one regiment at the front, in which he said within a few days the whole of Britain will be ringing with your glory. It was three months afterwards before even the event was mentioned at all in any paper.
What I suggest is this, and I hope the Solicitor-General will consider whether he cannot pass on the suggestion to the proper quarter, is that if necessary a second official eye-witness should be nominated by the Government, who would, no doubt, see that he was the proper official to be appointed, and that he should write separately, after the battle had been fought, an account of the brave deeds of the different regiments at the front. He need not do so until he has convinced himself by investigation that no information will be given to the enemy, and that no harm will possibly be done. I believe, if the Solicitor-General would carry out 367 that suggestion, it would give great satisfaction to the public generally, and for the life of me I cannot see why such a suggestion is not adopted. Let me say in conclusion, that I think the Solicitor-General took this Debate too seriously. If he had inquired, he would have been informed that my hon. Friends never dreamed of putting the Motion to a Division. It is the Parliamentary form of raising a discussion, of which we have not too many opportunities. I can assure him that no one has any lack of confidence in himself personally, or even with his Department, but we are anxious to have a little more attention than we are getting, and I think it would be generally for the benefit of the Army, and I am sure give great satisfaction to the public who have friends at the front, if the suggestions made were carried out.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHPerhaps the House will allow me for a few moments to take part in criticising those who have criticised. I might at the outset pay a tribute to the tone and temper of the last two speeches. While I disagree with the point of view of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), and also with that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Dalziel), I realise that those two speakers have somewhat raised both the tone and the temper of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite criticised the Solicitor-General for having taken seriously some of the criticisms which had been directed against him. But were not some of those criticisms very serious? When it is alleged against any Minister that he has shown partiality to this or that paper, is it possible for any honourable Minister to regard such a criticism as other than serious?
Sir H. DALZIELWhat I understand to have been stated is that in the course of the procedure of the Department one paper submitted something and had it passed, while to another paper it was denied. That is no suggestion against the Solicitor-General.
§ Mr. KINGI used the word "injustice," but I never made any accusation against the Solicitor-General or anybody else of acting intentionally with injustice.
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERI am only too glad to accept a withdrawal of that kind. The statement made was that I allowed matter to be published in a provincial 368 paper but stopped it in the London Press; that the principles of my office were not being fairly applied, and that I had been guilty of injustice. If by that nothing is meant, there is nothing more to say.
§ Mr. H. SMITHI heard the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), and I am perfectly clear in my mind as to what he said. He was speaking on a Motion, not in criticism of the War Office, not in criticism of the Government generally, but in criticism of the Press Bureau, and he chooses that Motion of criticism of the Press Bureau, which obviously means the head of the Press Bureau, to inform the House of an alleged partiality to one paper.
§ Mr. SHERWELLApparently the hon. Member has fallen into the same error that the Solicitor-General most clearly fell into. I do not think that he or the Solicitor-General is allowing for the fact of the situation to-day. The Press Bureau is the only channel or medium for the communication of news between the battlefield and the British public, and, in default of any other opportunity or any other person, we are bound to raise, on an occasion such as this, all questions of discrimination in the exercise of the Press censorship. If the Solicitor-General or the hon. Member opposite can induce the Government to put before us the people who are actually responsible, we will address our criticisms and inquiries to them. I claim that I merely, alluded to a definite fact and asked for an explanation of that fact. The Solicitor-General happens to be the only Member of the Government to whom I can address a question of that kind.
§ Mr. H. SMITHI accept the hon. Member's explanation. But it is not true that the Solicitor-General is the only Member of the Government to whom he could apply. He could apply to the War Office. He knows perfectly well that the action of the military authorities in Dunkirk is not controlled from the Solicitor-General's desk in Whitehall. The hon. Member says that the Solicitor-General is the only Minister he can criticise. I submit that he does not do justice to his own intelligence. That was purely and solely a War Office matter. It had nothing to do with the publication of news or the censoring of the British Press. The hon. Member knows that if any British Minister was responsible for that action, he must seek that Minister in the four walls of the War Office and not in the office of the Press 369 Bureau. In spite of the hon. Member's repudiation, I say that, having regard to the attack which he, perhaps unconsciously, made, and having regard to what an hon. Member on this side said, but has since withdrawn, the Solicitor-General was justified in taking somewhat seriously criticisms which appeared to me and to other Members of the House to be indeed serious.
The House may or may not remember that I spent four strenuous months at the office of the Press Bureau. While those months were particularly strenuous, I was fortunate in that I was never at any time responsible in any way for the policy of the Bureau. I was responsible merely for the organisation and the formation of the machinery. Therefore I may speak with a more open mind than others who were more particularly responsible for its policy. I have always shared to a great extent the regret of hon. Members that it was not possible to give to the country more news. To a very great extent I still share that regret, but I cannot share the criticism of hon. Members who share with me that regret. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, my right hon. Friend below me, and all critics of the Press Bureau, have invariably prefaced their criticisms by the statement that they would not ask for the publication of anything likely to do harm. Who is to be the judge? The right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State for War? There is another remark always made by these critics. I hope I am not disrespectful to my right hon. Friend, but he adopted it to-night. He said that if it became a question of accepting the views of, I think, the whole House of Commons on the policy of publication as against the views of Lord Kitchener, he would at all times accept the views of the Secretary of State. We arrive then at this position: no Member of the House desires to publish anything likely to do harm, and every Member present would prefer to leave these matters at all times to Lord Kitchener in preference to either the individual or the collective opinion of Members of this House. If you hold those views, how can you criticise the man who directs the policy of publishing or withholding military news? It is not the Solicitor-General, and the House knows it. It is not the Press Bureau; the House has over and over again within my knowledge, and within my hearing, been told that categorically. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat 370 down objects to reading the past answer of the Solicitor-General as to the policy of the Press Bureau. I really think he would be wise, before he or his colleagues criticise the Press Bureau again, to very carefully read every word of that answer, when he will—
Sir H. DALZIELWhat did I say which was in criticism of the Press Bureau? I ventured to make a suggestion that we should have special accounts of the deeds of different regiments. I should like to know what I said that was criticising the Press Bureau?
§ Mr. SMITHIf I misunderstood the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism, then I very much regret it, but I am speaking within the memory of the House.
§ Mr. SMITHIf the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am within the memory of the House, and I really think that the nature of his criticism, that the whole of his speech, was one long criticism. For instance, take the very case he cites for the publication of more news. Is that not criticism of the Press Bureau? If it is not criticism of the Press Bureau, it does not seem to me to be relevant to this particular Motion. If hon. Members elect to make their charges about the publication of news under the protection of a Motion which criticises the Press Bureau, surely they cannot object if it is said that that criticism entails criticism of the Press Bureau! However, I do not want to be drawn into a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly thought he was criticising, and I say, while I share the regret that news is not to be given out, cannot be given out more, I am equally certain with the right hon. Gentleman and others that the Secretary of State for War must be the judge, having regard not only to his own experience, but to his direct information, and the direct communication he is in with General Joffre and General French. I am convinced that we must leave the final decision in his hands and in his hands only. I am convinced of this: If you are going to criticise the publication or withholding of news, then you must criticise the Secretary of State for War and not the Director of the Press Bureau. It is really—and it is with great respect that I say this—quite useless for hon. Members to pay lip service to the Secretary of State for War for his efficiency, knowledge, and 371 capability, and in the same breath to pour out their voluble criticism against the very Minister whom they have been praising only the moment before. If you criticise the withholding of news, you criticise the Secretary of State for War. If you praise the Secretary of State for War, then you praise the man who is responsible for withholding or publishing military news.
The other observations I have to make under this head are as to the grave danger of the publication of news. It is almost impossible if you are going to give the Press increased powers, to give them almost carte blanche permission to publish what they like, to stop dangerous news from getting into the papers. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth gave us a very striking instance in the leading article that he mentioned. I can give hon. Members in my own knowledge and experience of the Press Bureau—I can submit cases to them privately—some extraordinary examples of the serious injury which has been done by too free a pen having been allowed a free course. Only the other day, since I left the Press Bureau and since I have been engaged in other duties in another sphere altogether, I learnt of the injury done by the publication of a picture in one of our illustrated war papers. I am not permitted to discuss it now, even if it were advisable, because it is a matter which relates to the Admiralty, and I can only bring to hon. Members the effect of the publication of this particular picture to the effect it had in the highest quarters of those who are responsible for the movement of our troops and the absolute control of our grand Fleet. I can show hon. Members the picture, and leave it to their discretion as to whether they themselves would have passed that picture for publication. I am convinced there is not one who would have seen the slightest harm in the picture, which looks the most innocent one in the world. But I can say that its publication is regarded by those in the highest quarters as one of the most dangerous pieces of news which had ever been allowed to be published since the beginning of the War—at any rate, relating to Admiralty and Naval matters.
I only mention that in order to illustrate my argument that it is better to suppress a thousand things for a few hours about Tabriz, Mohammed, and so on, than to run the slightest risk of publishing either, a leading article, an article 372 by a military expert, or a picture showing one of our battleships near to an easily recognised piece of land. It is much better to err a thousand times on the side of overprecaution than to run the slightest risk of publishing anything that is dangerous. I would ask hon. Members who criticise the Press Bureau—there are very few, I must say, who do so criticise it—to realise the gigantic task of the right hon. Gentleman; to realise the vast machinery which is set up by our British Press—of course, realising at the same time the hearty co-operation, patriotism, and loyalty of the Press, to which I certainly pay, and always have paid, my humble tribute—realising all that, I say there is no hon. Member who has not had to do with the Press Bureau who can appreciate how difficult and how vast is the task for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible.
I must make one further reference to the comment made by the hon. Member for Brentford as to repeating the allegation which has been made in this House that the Solicitor-General has ever been in the habit, or has on certain occasions shaped his policy with the desire to protect Ministers, his own colleagues, in the House. It would appear that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, after the explanation given, is inclined to withdraw that charge. But the charge has been made before, and I think it has been repeated. It has been justified, not by bringing forward any particular instances or examples. So far as I remember, no such instances or examples have ever been brought forward. That seems to me both very uncharitable and bad debating, because if there are instances why are they not brought forward, and if there are no instances why is a charge levied? I believe that this charge is justified to some extent by the speech delivered in this House by the learned Solicitor-General, which I myself did not hear. I am not here to defend the speech of the Solicitor-General, nor am I able to-do so, for I forget the precise point of it. But it was delivered by the Solicitor-General after perhaps many hours at the Press Bureau. I am not here to defend him; he is quite capable of looking after himself.
But that speech was explained very shortly afterwards, and the explanation was entirely satisfactory both to his colleagues and to the Press. I would like to add, as a result of my own experience of the Press Bureau, under the hon. and 373 learned Gentleman, that the allegation that he at any time shaped his policy or has been influenced in shaping his policy by a desire to protect his own colleague on the Front Bench is as grotesque as it is untrue. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember I had a discussion with him on a Sunday afternoon on a particular point, and the charge is so grotesque to me that I can only say that I criticised the hon. and learned Gentleman, not for keeping back news because it might injure the party, but I criticised him—if at all—for publishing what in my humble opinion was apt to be dangerous, but which he thought necessary, and which he preferred to publish because keeping it back would have laid him open to the charge that he was protecting colleagues and Ministers. I can quote certainly one instance of that in which I entirely and respectfully disagree from the judgment of the hon. and learned Member, but it was a case near the line. He supported it not only on its merits, but particularly because he said that, so long as he was at the Press Bureau, he would never allow any man to say of him that in taking up that office he shielded or protected his colleagues. I can repudiate that calumny, and I think it may come with stronger force from myself than from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think it is only fair it should be brought to the notice of the House, and I can assure hon. Members that whoever repeats that particular charge is doing so without any knowledge of the facts of the case.
There is one other point only for which I ask the indulgence of the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Hume-Williams) recited various instances—I will not go into them in any detail—in which the Press Bureau was responsible for keeping back information from the public. It will be in the recollection of the House that he recited a case of the execution of the spy Lody, the riots in a German Prisoners' Camp in the Isle of Man, and some news about Turkey. I am not going into the details of any of those cases. I would ask who really is to decide this? Is it possible that the House is not prepared in a crisis such as this to trust the War Office, or the Admiralty, or the Foreign Office to decide this question? At normal times I have held no brief for this War Office, this Admiralty, or this Foreign Office. I have not criticised very often, though I have listened with great pleasure to criticisms 374 of Ministers who represent all these Departments; but I have never done any of those right hon. Gentlemen the injustice of thinking that they are fools. I do not believe that if the Foreign Secretary issued an Order as to Turkey he would issue that Order without thinking or foolishly. I think that it has been done as part of the central policy of the Foreign Office, and I give the War Office credit, in asking the Press to keep back for a day or two the execution of a spy, of doing it as part of a settled policy, and after due consideration, and that for issuing a notice the Secretary for War will take full responsibility in another place if challenged. The same with the Admiralty. How can you set up the views of even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, or the views of any hon. Member of this House as against the views of the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty upon any of those questions on which they know they are bound to be criticised sometime or other by the Press or by this House?
In a crisis so grave as this, with Ministers such as you have at the head of the great Departments, you must be satisfied to leave the decision of those problems, whether great or whether they appear to you to be small, to those who are responsible for the safe conduct of this War, and the safety of our soldiers in the trenches, and our sailors on the ships. I take finally the view, although it may not be the popular view, that it is a grave danger to issue too much to the public. I believe that there is no popular demand for the issue of more news. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will qualify that by saying that I think the public would like to have more records of heroic deeds at the front; but I say, speaking generally, this criticism of the Press Censor, though it is really a criticism mainly directed, or ought to be directed, to the great Departments—this criticism, I say, has not the support of the public behind it. I believe it to be very largely a Press-manufactured criticism. I do not believe it has the public behind it, and I believe it is infinitely better to err on the side of safety than to give to the Press or the public particulars which may be of danger to the public interest, at a time so grave as the present.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThis Resolution, which began its career under smiling circumstances, seems to have got into some stormy weather, and at present has no 375 friends. Those who have made speeches in support of it have been anxious to explain what they meant, and that the Resolution is so much verbiage, to which no importance need be attached. My hon. Friend has been telling the Solicitor-General that he really ought not to take this Resolution seriously—that it means nothing, and that it is only a way of paying compliments. That is not the way this will be understood outside. The terms are on the Paper, and if the Resolution is meant in the flippant way in which my right hon. Friend says it is meant, this becomes an abuse of the forms of the House. If the Resolution were adopted it would be taken very seriously by Germany. It is all very well to tell my hon. and learned Friend not to mind; it is always easy to bear attacks on other people. But this Resolution, and speeches made in defence of it, are clearly an attack on the Press Bureau. It was an allegation that it was acting without principle, that its proceedings were suspicious, and that they were calculated to cause discontent; and to suggest, like my right hon. Friend, that it was only a way of scattering bouquets, is really asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to believe too much.
Sir H. DALZIELI do not mind my hon. Friend attacking my speech, but let him speak of facts. What I say is that there are few opportunities for private Members to raise this question at all. My right hon. Friend was lucky in the ballot, and he had to draft a Motion in order to get a debate. I do not think it is fair to suggest that anyone who takes part in the Debate on the Motion is necessarily in sympathy with the terms of the Motion.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI think we may leave my right hon. Friend to settle that point with the Mover of the Resolution, and I hope he may be able to congratulate him on the felicity of its phraseology. At any rate, the attack has now broken down. I support the view of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, that this agitation against the Press Bureau has no backing outside. It has been engineered for months by a particular section of the Press, and not by the Press as a whole. It has moved no one outside. So far as I have been able to judge public opinion, in going about the country at recruiting meetings, the Press Bureau has never been mentioned. I have never heard at 376 any public meetings I have addressed any reference to the Press Bureau. The public is prepared to trust the men at the head of the Admiralty and the Army They recognise that the Press Bureau is an absolutely essential feature of modern warfare. To carry out the proposals made here to-night might be good for the Press, but it would be very bad for the country. You might as well give up the War altogether and ask Germany to dictate her terms to this country. I am afraid my hon. Friends do not follow the discussion with as much care as they have displayed in drafting this Resolution. It must be the lot of censors to come in for censure.
The Censor has always been censured and always will be, and if this present Censor was not censured, he would not be doing his duty to the country. The hon. Member for Kirkaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) said you ought to have practical journalists at the head of the Press Bureau, and he says that things would have been worked more smoothly if the Bureau had been controlled by journalists. I will take two prominent journalists, Lord Northcliff and Mr. Cadbury. I wonder if the proceedings of the Press Bureau would have been conducted differently by them or by the proprietors of the "Daily Chronicle" or the "Daily Telegraph" than it has been conducted by my hon. and learned Friend? It is not necessary to defend every exercise of the prerogative or discretion of the Censor. Undoubtedly there has been some failure in discretion, and I think the greatest was the publication of the despatch which referred to the British Army as a broken army. The group of papers responsible for engineering this attack in favour of more liberty for the Press, desires to send out photographers and descriptive writers, but that is not an argument in favour of relaxing the censorship, but in favour of making it stronger. This agitation has not always been conducted by patriotic methods. I have in mind an observation made by the particular newspaper conducting this campaign, in which they said:—
The Government can make their choice. They can give the news and get the recruits, or they can withhold the news, and go without the recruits.If that had appeared in a newspaper in Germany, containing so clear a threat to the Government to alter its policy, I am sure the German Government would have taken drastic action. Here was a deliberate statement that unless the Government altered its policy they were not going to be allowed to get their recruits. 377 But can it truly be said that the censorship has stopped recruiting? How can that statement be justified? Six months ago this country was the least military country in the world, and some parts of it hardly ever saw soldiers. But to-day the country has become one great arsenal and armed camp and training ground. I cannot understand how men who go about with their eyes open can maintain the statement that the censorship has interfered with recruiting. War is a soldier's business, and the less journalists and politicians interfere with it the better for the conduct of the War. Whatever is allowed to appear in our newspapers becomes known in Germany within twenty-four or forty-eight hours, and therefore the Censor in sanctioning the issue of news has to bear in mind that in sanctioning information to our public he is also sanctioning it to the German public. That being so, who has to decide? Is it to be a committee of editors or the men who have to bear the responsibility and who have to stand the racket if things go wrong? Whether so meant or not, this attack on the Censor is an attack upon our generals. It may not be so intended, but that is what it comes down to. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to say whether General French or Lord Kitchener have ever asked for a relaxation of the censorship in the way which has been suggested to-night?
§ Sir S. BUCKMASTERNo.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThe hon. and learned Member says "No."
§ Mr. KELLAWAYIs the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kirkcaldy, prepared to set up his opinion against those two great generals? I will take the strongest point made against the Censor, and that is the refusal to allow the publication of the magnificent deeds of our Army, deeds which have added innumerably to the treasury of British valour. This does appear to be a stupid and shortsighted exercise of the discretion of the Censor, but there is another side to it, and I would set against that argument a quotation from a speech made by General Smith-Dorrien, whom this House will admit was entitled to have his opinion respected. He said on this very subject, as reported in the "Daily Express":—
No matter how gallant the work that, had been performed they heard nothing about it. It was absolutely necessary to keep everything important 378 from getting into the papers—the gallant deeds, how performed, and what such-and-such a regiment had done. That is why our men had to go on performing those deeds without their relations at home knowing anything about them.That is the opinion of a practical soldier, and it is as striking in its way as the opinion given by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). Here you have the opinion of these practical men who are taking greater risks than any of us holding that view, and how can you set up against them the opinion of laymen and of journalists, however skilful, against an authority of that kind? I believe it is the general view amongst the men who ought to know that if the German Army and the German higher command had known the true strength of the British Army at Ypres we should never have been able to maintain that defence. It was only because we were able to mislead the German Army as to the strength of our force that that most heroic defence was successful. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that this attack represents only a certain section of the Press, and a few hon. Members in this House who have been influenced by the Press. The public outside has no sympathy with these attacks upon the Press Bureau, and I hope my hon. Friend will continue to take his directions from the generals and the admirals, and treat the journalists and politicians with the contempt which they deserve.
§ Mr. LYNCHIn the course of listening to this Debate I have noticed that the arguments of those who defend the Press censorship would apply to the censorship, no matter how badly it was conducted. The arguments used would mean that Parliament must entirely abrogate its function, and no matter how the censorship was carried on, that Parliament must cease entirely to intervene. Then again, in the course of his reply, the Solicitor-General at first loomed as a very important personage, but, as he proceeded to develop his line of defence, he seemed to recede into an almost mythical character. He apparently had no power at all; all the real essential power resided in the great Secretaries of State, and yet, in the course of his defence, and also in the course of that defence by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith), he seemed, after all, though I do not know that even his office is known to Parliament or sanctioned or approved by Parliament, to have exercised great powers of discrimination and of judgment. 379 I thoroughly agree with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) that the Solicitor-General seemed to put too much heat into his reply. He seemed to put something of a personal passion into a matter where he was not accused of any dereliction of duty, but where it was suggested that his office might be carried on with greater judgment, and, if ever I had doubts as to his judgment, they might have arisen precisely from the amount of heat which he put into a matter which, after all, was simply a question of discretion.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirckaldy Burghs that the Solicitor-General in this office would be greatly aided by a subsidiary commission, perhaps of journalists of experience and of matured judgment, who would aid him in the sifting of news, and who would advise him as to the relative value of news. Again and again in the course of the Debate insistence has been made on the amount of judgment necessary in order to ascertain, or to decide, whether a piece of news is of great value or not, and it seems to me that after all, though the profession of journalism appears to be a very simple thing to outsiders, it is precisely in those qualities of estimating the value and the import of news that the experience of the journalist tells. I think the censorship would be greatly aided by having at its service a commission of journalists well selected. I would also support the suggestion that experienced war correspondents should be allowed to go to the front. There has been a lot of useful work done in the past by men like Russell and Archibald Forbes; but I would venture to say of the war correspondents of the present day that they are certainly not inferior to any of those who have preceded them, even those most illustrious names in journalism, precisely in those qualities of discernment and of tact, and even in the power of illustrative writing. I do not think that any harm would accrue, whereas I think a great public service would be rendered if a small number of well chosen war correspondents were allowed to proceed to the front. I believe that has been already sanctioned in the case of the French Army. It has been sanctioned by the Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, at any rate with regard to neutral correspondents, and he again controls the operations 380 of the British Army, and it is to his judgment the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army submits.
10.0 P.M
The argument as to the danger of publishing news which might be of service to the enemy does not apply to news already known to the enemy. Again and again I have picked up foreign papers, French papers for instance, in which I have read items of news, interesting enough, but of no great strategic importance, and which therefore in the course of a day or two would be known to Germany, but which have not been published in this country until perhaps a week or more has advanced. The impression made upon neutral countries has very great importance from the diplomatic point of view, but nothing gives a falser impression, for instance to the American public, than to find that news with which they are perfectly familiar, which they have had illustrated at full length in their great newspapers, and which they know is perfectly well-known in Germany, is yet withheld from the British public. What is your reason, and what is the conclusion? The reason has been set forth in their own columns. It is that this country is afraid to hear the truth, and that the great authorities who control these matters are afraid of producing panic. I quite agree that is not a fair estimate of the country, but that has been the effect of withholding news, news sometimes of considerable importance, well known to the enemy, news which afterwards leaks out in this country without having been published, and is embellished with all sorts of remarks, ultimately producing an unsettling effect upon the public mind, and far more harm than if it had been published at the very outset. No doubt this Motion will not be pursued to the end, but at the same time it is perfectly legitimate for the House to keep a watchful eye on the Censor, to exercise to the full its functions of legitimate criticism, and especially to press forward for the publication as soon as possible of news which will do no harm to the strategic situation, or news which has already been known to the enemy, and especially news which will heighten the admiration of the magnificent feats of arms which have been exhibited in this great War as heroically, as impressively, and as brilliantly as ever in the history of this country in its great wars of the past.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.