§ Mr. BOOTHThe Prime Minister today, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) stated that the telegram from the military correspondent of the "Times," who has recently attracted so much attention, was censored at headquarters in France. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether we are to accept that statement or whether he can supplement that infor- 2296 mation on behalf of the Government? It seems to me incredible, and I am sure that no one would like such a serious statement to be made as that which is calculated in some minds to reflect upon the headquarters in France, unless it has every foundation in fact. From information which has come into my possession, I do invite the Government to supplement their statement at Question Time to-day and to inform the House whether that telegram was censored in this country or not.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. TENNANTBy the leave of the House, I may inform my hon. Friend that the statement which was made at Question Time was perfectly accurate, although it was not complete. The statement that the message or telegram to which attention has been drawn was censored by the General Headquarters in France is perfectly true, because we went to the trouble of telegraphing to ascertain whether it was so or not, and the answer came back "Yes." When I gave the answer for the Prime Minister at Question Time I was under the belief that was the only censorship which had occurred, although I was aware that the message had emanated from the War Office. I believed, having ascertained the fact that there had been a censorship at the General Headquarters in France, no further censorship took place at the War Office. It was assumed to be the fact that although it appeared with the War Office stamp of the Censor, yet the Censor had not gone through it carefully or indeed at all. It was assumed that the censorship at general Headquarters would be sufficient, but since Question Time I have been informed myself that the message did come through the War Office and was considered there, and I believe certain passages were actually censored, but the passage in question remained in. I think that that is a sufficient answer to the question which my hon. Friend has put to me.
Sir H. DALZIELI think the House will have heard with great surprise the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who now tells us that the statement published—the very alarming statement—which has given considerable uneasiness throughout the whole country, was passed not only at Headquarters in France, but by the representative of the War Office in London. In view of that fact I am afraid we must reluctantly come to the conclusion that the statement was true. For 2297 my part, I very much regret that we have not had at the same time as this admission a full statement on behalf of the Government with regard to the question which that important announcement has raised. We have heard it in the House of Lords this afternoon, and the question there has been generally discussed. It is an old House of Commons tradition that a question discussed in one House may also be discussed in the other. I can only express my regret that the War Office should have allowed that statement to be published. I cannot, for the life of me, see what public interest was served by creating so much alarm to the whole country, unless it was accompanied at the same time with a full explanation of all the circumstances. I do hope that before the House adjourns to-morrow the Government will seize the opportunity of taking the House frankly into their confidence, having regard to the fact that the statement which has been published has been published with their full authority.
§ Mr. KINGI do not think it necessary to arouse further alarm on this matter. It is obvious to anyone, who thinks, that many circumstances may be present that we do not know of to explain the whole position. For instance, although at the very moment to which this description refers there may have been a temporary deficiency of ammunition, it is quite possible that very shortly after the deficiency was supplied, and instead of their being danger of the information reaching the enemy, it may have been an actual advantage to us, if, supposing there was a deficiency, he attacked at a time when the deficiency no longer existed. There are other suppositions which would occur to anyone with a slight imagination, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise. I hope that no unnecessary alarm will be felt either in 2298 this House or in the country, because it is not possible to explain every sort of news that comes through the War Office.
§ Mr. TENNANTIf I may be allowed to speak again, I will say, in answer to my right hon. Friend that because this message came through with the authority of the Censor at the War Office, it must not be assumed that the War Office takes responsibility for all the statements contained in the message.
Sir H. DALZIELIs it not a fact that several very important passages were cut out of the message at the War Office?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes; but that does not give the authority of the War Office for this particular statement.
Mr. PRICEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the admission of the "Times" correspondent to the headquarters at the front is a new practice, and will newspaper correspondents be allowed to accompany the Army at the front? Many people have felt it to be the greatest disadvantage because we have not had, as we have had in former wars, certain representatives of the Press at the front. Is this a new departure? Is this one paper to be allowed to have this privileged position, or is it an indication that other papers are to be admitted to the same privileges?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe answer to my right hon. Friend is that this gentleman, the "Times" correspondent, was the private guest of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and no other newspaper correspondent, so far as I know, has had that privileged position. It was more accidental than anything else.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.