§ 41. Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary why the news of the resignation of M. Venezelos, the Greek Prime Minister, was kept back by the Censor on 6th October, especially in view of the fact that in Paris the news appeared in the morning editions of newspapers, and in London only in the early editions of evening newspapers of the same date?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe first message from Athens, reporting the resignation of M. Venezelos, was submitted to the Press Bureau at 4.35 a.m., though an earlier message from Paris reached there at 2.15 a.m. Reference to the Foreign Office for confirmation was clearly necessary in such a case, and as soon as publication was authorised both messages were passed at 11 a.m.
§ Mr. KINGWas it only the mere confirmation of the Foreign Office that came into the view, or had the Foreign Office to wait until they also received the message?
§ Sir J. SIMONIn a message of that importance, in view of the present situation in the Balkans, it was right in the public interest that care should be taken to verify it before it was published.
§ 42. Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the descriptive account of the recent battle in France, written by Mr. John Buchan, was so censored as to eliminate what he had written about the nerve, tenacity, and skill of the German soldiers; and whether it is the policy of the Government to suppress all such tributes to the fighting qualities of the enemy?
§ 44. Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information that the excisions of part of Mr. Buchan's dispatch which referred to the bravery of the German troops were made by two separate sets of authorities and against the express desire of the generals in the field; and, if so, will he say who were these two separate sets of authorities?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe account referred to was censored, in accordance with the usual practice, by the military authorities at General Headquarters in France, and by nobody else. I have no knowledge of two separate sets of authorities or of any conflict between their decision and the desire of generals in the field. The decision of the military authorities appears to have been that it was not in the public interest at that moment to publish a detailed account of an action which was only part of a larger movement.
The idea that these military censors selected for special excision a passage which acknowledged the quality of the German troops is without foundation. This sentence occurred in the course of the detailed description of operations the whole of which was cut out by the military censors in France. It is certainly not the policy of the Government to suppress tributes to the fighting qualities of the enemy, and I have no doubt that the military censors dealt with the passage as a whole for purely military reasons, and not with the object of suppressing the words of appreciation which happen to form a small part of it.
§ Mr. KINGIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the excision of these passages really destroyed the whole value and, as a matter of fact, ruined the perspective of the account so given?
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not know what opportunity my hon. Friend has had of examining the document. I have had an opportunity of examining it, and I differ from him in toto.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMWere these excisions made contrary to the wish of the generals serving in the field, as stated in the "Times" newspaper?
§ Sir J. SIMONI have answered that question. I said that I have no knowledge of two separate sets of authorities or of any conflict between their decision and the desire of generals in the field.
§ 43. Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it was stated in many London newspapers published on or about the 28th January, 1915, that the Bank of England had made a loan of £5,000,000 to Roumania; and whether this statement was submitted to and approved by the Censor before publication?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe answer to both parts of this question is in the affirmative.
§ 50. Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech recently made at York by Lord Selborne that, if some of the people of this country do not realise the greatness of the crisis, the fault is not wholly due to them, but largely to those who so unfortunately committed the crime of slurring over bad news and exaggerating good news; whether this statement correctly records the views of the Cabinet on the administration of the Press censorship; and whether he is aware that many private Members of this House have publicly expressed the same views as Lord Selborne?
§ 51. Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the speech delivered on Saturday last at York by the President of the Board of Agriculture, in which animadversions were made upon the Press censorship; and whether, in view of a member of the Cabinet publicly condemning the conduct of a Department of the Government, any action will be taken?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe question of the Press censorship has been frequently discussed in the House, and my Noble Friend has fully explained his position in another place.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question does not refer to the statement made by Lord Selborne referring to this specific incident, but to the slurring over of bad news which has been habitual and constant since the Press censorship was established?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is a debatable matter.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAre we to understand that the view expressed by the President of the Board of Agriculture is the view of the Government?
§ The PRIME MINISTERWhat view?
§ Mr. PRINGLEThat the action of the censorship was mischievous stupidity.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI did not understand my Noble Friend to express that. I would advise my hon. Friend to read the speech more carefully.
§ 59. Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that on 11th October he addressed an important letter to an anonymous correspondent defending the action of the Press Bureau and forwarded a copy of the same to the Press by messenger on the same day that he had written the letter, he will say why, seeing that the House met on 12th October, the day his letter was published, he did not make the defence of his Department in the House, which had been attacked by a Member of the Cabinet, instead of through the medium of an anonymous correspondent?
§ Sir J. SIMONMy hon. Friend is aware that full explanation has been given to the House more than once of the nature of the work done by the Press Bureau, and the letter referred to in no way interferes with any further discussion that may be desired. My hon. Friend will see by reference to a statement made in the House of Lords on Monday, that he is mistaken in supposing that any attack was made on the Press Bureau.
§ 63. Mr. HOGGEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Press Bureau in paragraph 219 drew the attention of the Press to the fact that they must not publish any interviews with Labour leaders; and whether it is the policy of the Press Censor to suppress opinions in their case while allowing others to express their views with impunity?
§ Sir J. SIMONNo, Sir; the Press Bureau never issued any notice differentiating between Labour leaders and others concerned in industrial disputes. What my hon. Friend is presumably referring to is a confidential communication issued at the request of the Ministry of Munitions with the object of discouraging the publication of hasty and ill-considered statements by either side likely to encourage industrial disputes, and so to make victory in the War more difficult to obtain.
§ 64. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether he accepts responsibility for the censoring as regards some newspapers of the statement made by Lord Derby that, in accepting his post as chief recruiting officer, he felt he was entering into a bankrupt concern; and, if he does not, can he say whether the War Office censored its own officer?
§ Sir J. SIMONI understand that the Censor whose action is referred to did not realise Lord Derby's official position, but as soon as the matter was brought to the attention of the Directors of the Bureau permission to publish was given.
§ 65. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether he can state for what reason the Press Bureau censored three words in the line
The captains and the kings departin a recent newspaper article?
§ Sir J. SIMONI understand that the gentleman who cut out the three words "and the kings" felt that, as no kings were present, it would be wrong to say that any of them departed.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIs the country still paying for the services of this idiot?
§ Mr. KINGIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman could not have known that there might have been a great number of people of the name of King?