HC Deb 10 January 1916 vol 77 cc1394-420

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. PRINGLE

An opportunity has been given by the Government in moving the Adjournment to consider the extraordinary action which was taken at the instance, we understand, of the Minister of Munitions, in suppressing the Glasgow newspaper "Forward" on Tuesday, the 4th January On the first occasion on which the matter was brought to the attention of the House, questions were put to various Ministers, one by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) to the Lord Advocate, another by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) to the Under-Secretary for War, and one by myself to the Secretary for Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War replied indicating very clearly that neither he nor any of the other Gentlemen who were questioned had any responsibility for the action which was taken. The reply of my right hon. Friend was as follows:— I have not yet received the official report of the details of the action taken against the newspaper "Forward," but I understand that action was taken by the competent military authority in Scotland under Regulation 51, Defence of the Realm Regulations, at the instance of the Ministry of Munitions The ground for the action taken was an offence under Regulation 27. It does not, necessarily follow that there will be any trial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th January, 1910, col 801.] Subsequently, a number of supplementary questions were put, and it became clear as the cross-examination of the Under-Secretary for War and the Minister of Munitions continued that no statement could be made as to the exact grounds upon which the paper was suppressed. The only definite statement made in the course of this examination was by the Minister of Munitions to the effect that it had made a number of statements in previous issues which should have caused the paper to be suppressed long ago. That was the situation with which we had to deal in the House. The issue suppressed was the issue of the 1st January, and everybody could see the obvious reason for its suppression, namely, that it contained reports of two meetings addressed by the Minister of Munitions under some difficulty, in Glasgow, in course of the previous week. I have no doubt it will be said that the editor of "Forward" had no right to publish any of these reports, because an official notice had been sent by the Press Bureau to forbid the publication of any but the official version. There is an interesting incident in connection with this order. The notice was issued by the Press Bureau in the following terms:— Mr. Lloyd George will address meetings at Glasgow. and it is particularly requested that no report other than the official version of his speech should be published. "Particularly requested." That was on the 24th December. This notice was sent out to all newspapers except to the editor of this particular newspaper. No notice was issued to him. That I can prove. It must have been quite well known, however, to the Press authorities that a newspaper named "Forward" was in wide circulation in the West of Scotland, and that it is one of the most widely circulated weekly papers in that district; yet no notice was received by the editor. That is not a complete history of the extraordinary career of the Press censorship Every paper which received a notice expected that in due course the Press Bureau would send out a report, but it never sent out any account. What was sent out was a report by the Press Association, passed by the Press Bureau, and every newspaper not associated with the Press Association received no report. It was only the favoured client of a certain news agency that received the report. It was a report which was censored solely by the Minister himself, and it never came from the Press Bureau. The position is that the Minister who censored his own report becomes prosecutor of a paper that is understood to have offended.

I desire to call attention to this report. It gives a history of the postponement of the meetings originally fixed. It was a postponement which gave rise to great discontent among the leaders of the trade unions in the West of Scotland, and it caused them at their meeting on Thursday night—the date fixed for the original meeting—to pass by a large majority a resolution declining to meet the right hon. Gentleman at all. When this decision was communicated to the right hon. Gentleman and his travelling suite, the Minister of Education at once went to the Central Station Hotel and received there a somewhat interesting reception. He endeavoured to prevail upon the trade union leaders to rescind their resolution. They refused to do so. Subsequently, in the small hours of the morning—four o'clock—Lord Murray of Elibank sent taxicabs all over Glasgow to call the trade union leaders to a further meeting on the Friday morning. Only a small number attended, but they were eventually prevailed upon to attend a meeting on Christmas morning which the Minister of Munitions and the Minister for Education—for I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle is still the Minister for Education—addressed.

Mr. KING

Where is he now?

Mr. PRINGLE

I do not know whether this is the passage which the right hon. Gentleman will lay hold of as indicating that the paper discouraged the production of munitions. It reads to this effect:— Saturday's meeting was not representative of all the Clyde Unions. The other unions have drafted a circular to their members explaining why they refused to take part in the Saturday meeting. On tins phase of the whole strange business, the only comments necessary are of relief that such a large proportion of union officials refused to be jockeyed about at the sweet will of the Minister of Munitions—where so many showed dignity and refused to be overawed by the politicians a comment of surprise that a Minister of Munitions that openly boasts of the economies it is securing, should actually have cancelled an evening meeting that cost no expense in workers' wages or in production and substituted there for a forenoon meeting, which to the extent that it was attended by munition workers, diminished production and cost the country 6s. per head—this being the sum the unions are to pay each member attending the meeting. The unions are to be reimbursed by the Ministry of Munitions. In hard cash—uselessly spent hard cash—here goes one thousand pounds. I do not know whether that is a statement which the right hon. Gentleman contends discouraged the production of munitions. It seems to me to be a statement showing great concern regarding the output of munitions, and the expenditure of the taxpayers' money, a very logical position for any newspaper to take up. Then there follows a report of the Saturday's meeting, in which Mr. Lloyd George remarked that Mr. Ramsay Macdonald was one of his greatest personal friends, although he did not speak on the Munitions Act. He also thanked the Socialists for appealing for a hearing for him. I do not intend to go through the whole of this report. It is very interesting, because it shows the facility and wit of my own countrymen as interrupters. Still, I have no desire to air the virtues of my countrymen. I must refer, however, to the extraordinary testimony given by the Minister of Munitions to the Member for Leicester. "I want to say, "he remarked, "in the most emphatic terms, that the safeguarding of the trade union position is already in the Act of Parliament, and I want to tell you it was put there by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald." But that was not the case. I believe in flattering audiences, but, at least, I would flatter them with the truth. This shows, however, how hard pressed these two Ministers of the Crown were when they had actually to pray in aid the Member for Leicester. Then we hear of the mixed reception which my right hon. Friend received. He said:— I have addressed many meetings in Scotland and have never seen Scotsmen deny the right of free speech. His first action on returning to London was to suppress this speech by the suppression of this newspaper. That was not his only reference to free speech. He appealed again to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. He said:— I will ask any man representing you in the House of Commons—and surely there is someone you trust. ('No!' and Laughter.) That includes us all. Then my right hon. Friend says:— Not even Mr. Ramsay Macdonald? ('Yes, yes.' Loud cheers were given for Ramsay Macdonald.) Mr. Macdonald is one of my greatest personal friends, and whether he is for the War or against the War, not one single word shall fall from my lips against Mr. Macdonald. You get Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. He will tell you they are national factories. There is a further reference in which my right hon. Friend reminded the audience that he stood with the Socialists against the South African War. I wonder how my right hon. Friend would have fared if some of his utterances on the South African War had been treated in the same way that he is now treating "Forward." I think that was a rather unhappy reference. Then there follows a further report, the history of which is not yet complete. The House may remember that on the occasion of the Report stage of the Munitions Bill I quoted from this meeting—a meeting with the shop stewards at Park-head—one or two statements which were positively denied by the Minister of Munitions. He said that the statement was completely inaccurate and that the report was altogether inaccurate. Well, I have received a letter from one of those connected with the meeting stating that there are now affidavits signed by representatives of the shop stewards at that meeting.

Mr. ANDERSON

Who were all present.

Mr. PRINGLE

Who were present, including the chairman, stating that the report appearing in "Forward" was an accurate report and asking me to make that statement in the House of Commons. I have not yet received the affidavits, but as I have received the substance of them, and as this is the opportunity for making a statement regarding the matter, I think it only right I should say that the authority upon which I made this statement which was then so positively denied is willing to support me in the statements I made then. The most important thing in regard to this report was the statement which I did not then quote because of my right hon. Friend's interruption. It is as follows:— A number of questions on the Munitions Act were afterwards put by various members of the audience, one speaker pointing out that he was prevented by Mr. Lloyd George's Act from taking another job in which the wages would be increased by 8s. a week. Kirkwood added that this Munitions Act bound the workers to Beardmore as effectively as if they had branded a capital B on their brows. Mr. Lloyd George said that he was not responsible for the Munitions Act. It emanated from their leaders, men like Mr. Brownlie and Mr. Arthur Henderson, who was present. Kirkwood turned dramatically towards Mr. Henderson, and declared, while waving his hand. 'We repudiate this man. He is no leader of ours.' Brownlie has been told the same to his face. And if you, Mr. Lloyd George, want to know the minds of the workers, don't go to these men. Those are the reports. We can understand that the Minister of Munitions should desire to suppress them. Before leaving these reports I will make one remark. I can very well understand, apart altogether from the hostile reception which my right hon. Friend received, that he should desire to have an official report issued. I can understand that because when he is speaking at such meetings he desires a free hand, free from Press reporters, when he speaks frankly regarding the actual state of our preparedness as to the supplies available both to our own Armies and also to our Allies. He, therefore, is extremely desirous that nothing which might be contrary to public interest should be published in the Press. The editor of this paper took the utmost pains to omit every single reference in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to the supplies of munitions. Not a single reference to the condition of our supplies, to the number of shells, to the number of guns, or to any other matter of that kind is contained in the report. He confines himself exclusively to the political and industrial situation. I think, in the circumstances, that a man who is so careful to avoid publishing any information which might be valuable to the enemy should not be punished because he gives a faithful report to the country, enabling the country to know the exact state of the feeling and of opinion among the great body of munition workers on the Clyde. I have stated that these are the reports which appeared in this number. I have gone through the whole of this number with the utmost care. Several of my hon. Friends in this House have read every word and every line in it with the keenest desire to see if there was a single statement in its issue of 1st January to which the slightest exception could be taken or by which it could be thought that in any way it prejudiced our cause or that it could be alleged that an effort was being made to diminish or interfere with the output of munitions of war. I have looked up Regulation 27 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations (Consolidated), the Regulation under which it is alleged that this paper committed an offence. That Regulation is to this effect:

"No person shall by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publications spread false reports."

Is this a false report?

"Or make false statements, or reports or statements likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty."

Have I read anything likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty?

"Or to interfere with the success of His Majesty's Forces by land or sea or to prejudice His Majesty's relations with foreign Powers or spread reports or make statements likely to prejudice the recruiting, training, discipline, or administration of any of His Majesty's forces, and if any person contravenes this provision he will be guilty of an offence against these Regulations."

I have gone through this number with the greatest care. I can find nothing whatever on any page in any column or any paragraph which comes within Regulation 27. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that this paper has done harm in previous issues. If it did harm in previous issues, and if it has made statements which come under that Regula- tion in previous issues, why were not those issues dealt with? I would point out, as against any such contention, the fact that we know that it was this issue that he desired to suppress. When they went to the offices where "Forward" was published they searched for the copies of this issue of 1st January. But that was not all. They went through the list of subscribers. They went to the houses of the subscribers and tried to get every single copy of the issue of 1st January which was in existence into their power. Not only did they get the list of subscribers in the office, but they went to the newsagents where this paper is sold—and it is sold in many newsagents shops in the Clyde Valley. They got the names of the customers there, and went to the houses of all these people. We had a most extensive series of domiciliary visits, all to suppress an accurate account of the meeting addressed by the Minister of Munitions. But it was not only "Forward" that they took. Some of them took the "Glasgow Herald" by mistake, and I am even told that in one case by inadvertence the "British Weekly" Was also seized.

An HON. MEMBER

The "Times"?

Mr. PRINGLE

No, the "Daily Mail," which reported that my right hon. Friend delivered an ultimatum to the Prime Minister, was not suppressed. I do not know what effect that was calculated to have on His Majesty's subjects—whether it was likely to cause doubt as to the policy which was being pursued by His Majesty's Government—but that was not suppressed. I put a question on Tuesday last whether any judicial proceedings would be taken. I was told that probably there would be no trial. To that I take the strongest objection, and I think the majority of Members of this House, irrespective of party, will agree that when action of this kind is taken an opportunity should be afforded to have the matter threshed out in open Court. There is no reason why the editor of "Forward" should not be entitled to a fair trial. You have suppressed his newspaper. The issue which was to have come out last Saturday he was unable to publish. I am not speaking as any personal friend of the editor of "Forward." He is an old antagonist of mine—one of the bitterest antagonists I have ever had, a man who has pursued me in election campaign after election campaign with great bitterness, but I believe on the most conscientious grounds. I believe he was actuated by views of public policy which he honestly held. I know him to be an honest man. I know him to be a man of great ability and a man who is doing his best to spread what he believes to be sound views among his fellow countrymen. I do not agree with his views in regard to this War, but there is one thing that can be said. He leaves his columns open to all views. He has a regular contributor who, every week, puts in the strongest way the British case for the War, and if one looks at his correspondence columns week by week one sees the strongest views in opposition to his own fairly represented—an example which might well be followed by organs of higher standing. That is the character of the paper. I do not believe in its opinions; I think many of its opinions are pernicious, but it is an honest periodical, and here you have the editor, a poor man relying entirely on what he earns by publishing this for his subsistence, and you are taking the livelihood from that man without a formal trial. My right hon. Friend, we all know and I do not wish to reproach him for it, boasts, as he boasted in Glasgow, that he himself has earned his own living in the same way. I think surely he, at least, should have some sympathy with a man in such circumstances and that before his means of sustenance are taken from him he should allow him a trial in the Courts of law. We have had no explanation in this House. All we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman was that it should have been suppressed long ago, and if it should have been suppressed long ago the editor should have been in the Law Courts long ago. Why is he not in the Law Courts now? Unless judicial proceedings are taken this can only be branded as action of the most oppressive and the most tyrannical character. It is not only because of the nature of the action that I am here to protest. It is because I believe my right hon. Friend, in taking this action, is doing the very worse service that he possibly can to the production of munitions in the Clyde Valley. I believe that he is stimulating, increasing, accentuating the unrest that there prevails. I believe, therefore, that he is not only doing what is unjust in itself, but that he is himself doing an injury to the country in that particular respect in which he is most interested. He is doing an injury because so long as you have discontent and irritation among these munition workers, so long will you be continually interfering with and delaying the production of munitions. I would ask him therefore that at any rate, if he wishes to justify this action, he should go into Court. He should take the offender into Court, have him tried for his offence, if indeed he has committed an offence under Regulation 27, and thereby he will convince these men on the Clyde that he is. willing to have his action fairly tried, and if he can make out a case in regard to this he will do something to remove the unfortunate, I might almost say the disastrous, effect of such tyrannical action.

The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George)

I rise to reply at once to the speech made by my hon. Friend. There is nothing which has fallen from him a bout the serious character of the action taken by the Government that I do not agree with—certainly about the gravity of any interference with a newspaper, any interference with the actual liberty of the Press, or the liberty of free speech. Nothing but the most overwhelming reasons could possibly justify the action which has been taken by the Government upon this particular occasion, nothing but the supreme interests of the State, and if I cannot justify before I sit down the action we have taken upon those grounds, I think the House of Commons will be entitled to say that the proceedings which have been undertaken stand condemned on the face of them. My hon. and learned Friend in his first statement said that we had not made quite clear the grounds on which we suppressed this newspaper, and he rather indicated that the reason why we suppressed it was that it had published an unfavourable report of the meeting at Glasgow. I think notice had been given to. three of my right hon. Friends of the question which was to be put, but no notice was given to me, and it was by the merest accident that I discovered it when I strolled into the House. I took the very first opportunity of stating that the publication of that account was not the ground upon which we proceeded, but the ground upon which we proceeded was that this paper has been deliberately inciting the workers there not to carry out an Act of Parliament which has been passed by this House in order to promote the output of munitions. I think that was the answer given by my right hon. Friend. That is the ground for our proceedings, and I can show the House by quotations from this newspaper that we were absolutely justified in the action we took. If it had been merely a question of the offence being committed in this particular number of this newspaper, perhaps a warning or perhaps proceedings in the Police Court would have met the case, but the case is a cumulative one. This paper has deliberately for months been trying to stir up disaffection amongst workers in a district which is more important to the equipping of the Army and the Navy than any other district in the United Kingdom. There are two newspapers. My hon. and learned Friend has referred to one, but he has not referred to the other. They are both turned out by the same press, and they were both seized. One is the "Forward," which is the more moderate of the two,;and when I quote passages from the "Forward," which is the more moderate of the two, the House will readily infer what the other paper is like. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the other paper?"] It is the "Vanguard," which is edited by a person who was fined because at a street corner he made a speech during the War damning the Army and denouncing every soldier who shoots a German as a murderer. He is the editor of the other paper which was seized, and which was printed by the same press which printed the "Forward." Both took the same line of action. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I can assure those hon. Members that I am not going to make a statement for which I am not prepared to give a quotation. We took exactly the same proceedings as my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir J. Simon) took in regard to the "Globe."

Mr. PRINGLE

A very bad precedent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

He is at all events the friend now of my hon. and learned Friend, and he has been cheered as the champion of liberty of conscience. We took exactly the same step, upon grounds which were much more overwhelming. My hon. and learned Friend must not assume that there will not be an opportunity for the proprietor or editor of the "Vanguard" or "Forward" to state their case in the High Court. He is rather premature in coming to that conclusion.

10.0 P.M.

What were the isteps we took? We took steps under two Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. One of these Regulations my hon. and learned Friend has quoted, but not the other. One of the Regulations under which we took action is as follows:

"No person shall by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publication spread false reports or make false statements or reports or statements likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty or to interfere with the success of His Majesty's Forces by land or sea, or to prejudice His Majesty's relations with foreign powers, or spread reports or make statements likely to prejudice the recruiting, training, or administration of any of His Majesty's Forces."

The other Regulation is Regulation 42, which runs:

"If any person attempts to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection amongst any of His Majesty's subjects or among the civil population, or to impede, delay, or restrict the production, repair or transport of war material or any other work necessary for the successful prosecution of the War, he shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations."

And I will give quotations to show that almost all these provisions have been transgressed. First of all, in regard to the spreading of disaffection about His Majesty. I will give a quotation from the "Forward" which, when the War had been going on for about twelve months, and at about the most crtical period of the War, made a very savage attack upon the British Monarchy, denouncing it as a foreign institution and its present holders as foreign. After very offensive reference to the late Queen, it goes on to suggest that the British should get rid of these extraneous Manchus exactly as the Republic of China had got rid of their superfluous Manchus, and it suggested that we should pay off our Germanic Manchus. That is in the "Forward," and the date is in July.

An HON. MEMBER

That is not the issue suppressed.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am going to bring it right up to date if my hon. Friends will be patient. I think we have shown too much patience. If my hon. Friends will listen to quotations from this newspaper I do not think it is quite the paper that they would care to champion on the floor of this House. I am going to bring these quotations right up to date, including the date when the paper was suppressed, because it is a cumulative case against it. The paper has been under the observation of the military authorities and under the observation of the Criminal Department. We have had complaints from South Africa about it, because the pro-German Dutch papers are quoting it wholesale, and we have had complaints about allowing a paper of this kind to be published in this country. There is another very offensive reference to the King, but I will pass that over and come to another point, namely, spreading discontent and disaffection and sedition in an area of the greatest importance, not merely for the production of munitions of war, but for recruiting. Some of the finest soldiers in the British Army have been turned out from the Clyde basin, and some soldiers happened to be present at the meeting when the editor of the "Vanguard" made the statement to which attention was called. These papers, as I have said, are printed by the same press, and they have discouraged recruiting in two ways. They have discouraged recruiting by representing this War as a capitalist war, a war initiated and engineered by capitalists merely in order to increase their profits—capitalists and financiers. Why on earth they should think financiers are going to profit by this War I do not know. There has never been any war half as disastrous to them. But, at any rate, let me point this out: This is an area peculiarly sensitive to an appeal of that kind. There is a very large Socialist population, many doing their duty manfully in the works, but very very susceptible to an appeal on that ground. There were sneers at British diplomacy, talks about the fraud of this War having been entered into for the defence of Belgium, and suggestions that the War was not embarked upon because of Belgium, but purely and simply because the capitalists wanted war in order to increase their profits. That is one way—I will make additions to that—in which recruiting was discouraged. But in the issue of the "Forward," on the very day I was in Glasgow, there was an attack on recruiting under Lord Derby's scheme. It was one of the most insidious and dangerous appeals to the working classes not to recruit I have ever read.

Mr. PRINGLE

Was that on the 25th of December?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That was the 35th of December?

Mr. PRINGLE

It was over.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Recruiting is not over. On the contrary, recruiting is reopened, and one of the appeals my hon. Friend will make to-morrow is that recruiting should go on voluntarily. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister has made arrangements that recruiting should go on voluntarily. My hon. Friend said that this hon. Gentleman is a very clever man. So he is. He is a very clever man, and in many ways this is a very crafty paper. One of those things which has been pointed out by my hon. Friend shows its craftiness. You get in one part of the paper a very temperate, reasonable argument which might be taken in support of the War. In other parts you get signed articles by well-known men appealing to the Clyde workers, and making all kinds of suggestions. But it is a very clever dialogue between the Derby canvasser and the working man who has been asked to recruit. What does it say? The working man says to him:— You want me to do pick and shovel work for a shilling a day. I retort I can only think of the fat profit you are going to make —this is the reply to the canvasser for recruits— out of this cheap, forced labour. Then it goes on to say:— You call this a voluntary system, driving men to accept a shilling a day and using the threat of compulsion as a whiplash. And all so that there will be more money for your Government contractors and all the others who are making money out of the War. He calls it digging mud at a 1s. a day. Not a word about separation allowance. Not a word. Simply a suggestion that this is an attempt on the part of the capitalists to get cheap labour in the Army in order to increase their own profits, and it goes on specifically to say so, and this is the way this imaginery dialogue ends up:— The fact is that the less the men get the more there will be left for you and your friends to grab. … —this is another part of the answer to the recruiter— And you will grab all you can. While you and your friends continue to make big profits, including the money I am to save the country by accepting a shilling a day. If that is not interfering with recruiting I should like to know what is. The paper is published in a working-class district, and to say the editor is a clever man makes it worse. All through it is extremely clever in its appeal—if the whole of this dialogue were read out—and to go to a working-class district and say, "They are offering you a 1s. a day to risk your life and dig mud. Why? So that they shall have all the more money to divide among themselves." A more dangerous article against recruiting has never been published in any paper.

Mr. PRINGLE

What about the refusal by Lord Northcliffe to publish Lord Kitchener's appeal?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I want to know whether that is approved?

Mr. PRINGLE

Why not do the same with Lord Northcliffe?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is a question you ought to put to the late Home Secretary. It was entirely in his hands. It would have been far better, if Lord Northcliffe has said it like this, to prosecute him than to make a speech against him in the House of Commons.

Mr. PRINGLE

You refused to allow it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

My hon. Friends have called upon me to defend this action, and they must listen to what I say. I could give endless quotations to show the efforts made to get it into the minds of the workers there that all this War is a kind of dodge to get non-propertied men to fight for property men, so as to increase their property. I gave a quotation of the 25th of December. I will give one in July, which shows you that the same sort of strain runs right through the paper:— The old men who possess the most property are our chief rulers, and they make quarrels among themselves internationally; then they shove the swarms of young men, most of whom are of the despoiled class, out in front to do the fighting: rather as 'sportsmen' set other animals to fight—

Mr. PRINGLE

Is that "Forward"?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is "Forward." I will tell him when we come to "Vanguard." This is "Forward." They pay us so much a shift for killing men just as they pay us in time of peace for killing pigs.… Munition workers are getting wages for producing smoke and corpses.

Mr. OUTHWAITE

That is one of your pro-Boer speeches.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I never said that. In the same issue it says munition workers are getting wages for producing smoke and corpses. Here is another article which is an indication of the attitude of this paper generally, not merely towards the War, but every patriotic appeal made to the workers:— If ever there was a superstition and a baseless authority, surely it is this claim of patriotism. To my mind it is an idea and an organised system which must be fought against with relentless zeal by all to whom freedom of action, as expressing freedom of thought, i3 the very breath of life. That is the general attitude of this paper in an article published during a period of critical war when this country is fighting for its life. Now I have given just a few quotations from the point of view of recruiting of the interference by this paper, which has been so lauded by my hon. Friend, with the efforts made to recruit men for the Army in the Clyde Basin. These men are told "if you recruit you will get a shilling a day "—not a word about separation allowance—"and if you do it it will not be to fight for your country, but in order to increase the profits of the Derby canvassers who are going about to persuade you to come in." I come to the other part of complaint against this paper. They discourage appeals and proposals for increasing the output of munitions. They support and stimulate strikes in munitions areas which interfere with the production of munitions. Now let me show how dangerous this is. The area where the paper is published, as I pointed out, is the most important munitions area in the whole Kingdom. You have got about the finest engineers in the world in this area; some of the most skilful. They have turned out some of the finest and best work in the British Navy. The Navy is dependent upon them for the urgent work which has been initiated in order to counteract the submarine attacks of Germany. Urgent work; work which cannot delay; everything depends upon it being done promptly.

The Navy are dependent upon this area for the preparing of torpedo-boat destroyers, and Admiral Jellicoe has already pointed out how very much his anxiety has been increased by delays. In addition to that great works have been set up there to turn out big guns and huge projectiles. In order to succeed in getting these guns and projectiles it is essential that we should persuade the skilled workers of this country to carry out the scheme of dilution which was initiated by the trade union advisers of the Department of Munitions. We cannot get the workers by any other means. Let the House realise for the moment what that means. Unless we get these big guns and projectiles the whole of this coming campaign will not accomplish its object. It is hard that, in order to defend our action, I should be forced to say that on the floor of the House. If my hon. Friends cannot see a little beyond that it does not say much for their intelligence. This is a thing which we have gone into carefully as a Government; we have gone into it with the War Office; it was only within the last few days that I have been going through it carefully again with the Prime Minister; and they are all absolutely convinced of the statement which I made. We have appealed to the workers to do what the workers in France have done—to suspend frankly their trade union regulations during the War. Unless that is done we cannot get our big guns, and the War will inevitably be prolonged. Hundreds of thousands of brave British lives will be sacrificed, and the whole future of this Empire will be imperilled. We have simply made this appeal to the men in the Clyde area, as well as elsewhere, to help us by suspending their regulations during the War. What has been the attitude of this paper? Opposition, which has spread distrust and suspicion of the proposal. It is suggested over and over again—I could offer quotations, and if anyone challenges me I will do it now—that this is a capitalist dodge to trick trade unionists out of their rights; that it is done to put more profits into the pockets of the capitalists. When my right hon. Friend and I were down at Glasgow, what was said of a leaflet issued by the Civic Press, and afterwards repeated in every copy of the "Vanguard," about our "coming down as the advance agents of financial scoundrels in order to trick you out of your trade union rights." In regard to a thing on which the very life of this country depends, we are asked to allow this paper to go on distilling its poison into the minds of the workers, and urging them to refuse the very things on which the lives of the men of this country depend.

Mr. OUTHWAITE

Is this in the "Forward"?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is in the very issue which was seized. My hon. Friend was very careful with his quotations to quote nothing of this. He quoted the little things which he thought were unpleasant to my hearing. Why on earth did he not quote the things which really went to the root of the matter? This is a very important matter, and the House of Commons is anxious to know that this newspaper has not been seized really because a Minister's vanity has been offended, for that is the real suggestion—the childish, fatuous, silly suggestion. What happened? I will take this very issue. I could go back and quote from many more. In the very issue which was seized there is an appeal from a trade union leader. These published that unless complete control of the workshops were given to the workers, then they were to resist the demand for dilution to the very death—an appeal to resist to the very death upon a condition which everybody knows it is impossible to carry out in time of war. There is the suggestion: "We will dilute, but you must hand over control of the workshops to the worker." What does this mean? These are not Socialists. The Socialist stands out for control by the State. They are not Syndicalists, because the Syndicalists, as I understand, stand out for running a business by means of its workers for the benefit of the whole trade. These are an absolutely new brand of Syndicalists who have taken root in the Clyde Valley, who wish to run each workshop and manage it by the workers for the benefit of the workers in those yards. That may be good, or it may be bad, but to say that you decline to take the only steps that will increase the munitions of war until the whole of that programme is adopted by the State is a position which certainly no Government could possibly tolerate. That is the appeal which is published and which is omitted by my hon. Friend. It is in the very interview from which he himself quoted. I will quote it:— But this scheme of dilution must be carried out under the control of the workers. They recognised that if they had not control cheap labour would be introduced, and unless their demand was granted they would fight the scheme to the death. That is on page 5.

An HON. MEMBER

Is that from the report of the meeting?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is not a report of the meeting. It is an absolute fabrication from beginning to end. I will give my hon. Friend a quotation which shows it. It imputes to me:— Mr. Lloyd George here interjected some remarks to the effect that the workers were not capable of managing workshops. Really I am not as stupid as all that as to go down to a lot of workers and say to them, "You are not fit to manage workshops." This is a complete, absolute invention—every line and every word and syllable of it from beginning to end. This is an appeal by this trade union leader to fight dilution to the death, dilution being the one plan by which we can get our guns. What does the leading article say? The leading article, as my hon. friend says, is very moderate and most temperate. But what does it say? It supports the appeal of this trade unionist, and says:— The dilution of labour without the workers controlling the workshops will speedily mean a permanent deterioration in the working-class standard of life, and it goes on to say that it would inflict an injury on them and their children. What does this mean? Here is a paper which has considerable influence among a section of workers in Glasgow. It publishes appeals to them not to do a thing which is in an Act of Parliament—because the suspension of trade union regulations is an Act of Parliament carried without a Division in this House. "Do not do it," they say, "unless the Syndicalist programme is first accepted as a conditional precedent"; and this leading article says, "Quite right, dilution or any other condition would deteriorate the standard of life amongst the workers." Such matter, sedulously circulated amongst the workers of so important an industrial centre, is fatal to the output of munitions of war in that district—perfectly fatal—and for the Government to have allowed it would have been a weakness which would have been quite unpardonable. I could quote many other passages. The line which they take from paper to paper is that the War does not count. As one paper—I forget which, but they both take the same line—says, "We Socialists are in opposition during the whole of the War; we are out to fight capital"; and, as "Forward" says:— We should not he thwarted by their whining about the country in danger. "The first thing," it says, "is to get rid of these parasites." And this is preached at a time more difficult than any before in the whole experience of the country. They appeal to the workers not to respond to the recommendations and counsels of their own leaders. The attack is not merely upon the Government. Their attacks on the trade union leaders are much more virulent and poisonous. They are constantly attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie). Why? Purely and simply because he has appealed to the workers to do their best to increase the output of munitions of war, and they suggest that he ought to be dismissed. Here is their attitude towards their old leaders. A number of Glasgow trade unionists went to the front. They came back and reported to the men at home living in safety and prosperity," but in some cases, we regret, not giving of their best to produce the shells and the various munitions that are required to enable our gallant fellows at the front to assure our safety at home. Then they go on to appeal to the workers on the Clyde to do their best to increase the output of munitions. They point out how urgent the demand is at the front, and how necessary it is to increase the supply for the protection of the lives of their gallant comrades. What does "Forward" say about that? One of the most amazing and insulting epistles ever addressed to the long-suffering and patient working class has been issued this week in the form of a report by a number of Glasgow trade union officials who have been trotted to the trenches and back by the military authorities. This insulting report is the form in which they make payment for their Continental tour. It goes on to say that some of them ought to be dismissed. They congratulate the Coppersmiths Society on having refused to send a representative for the purpose of blackening their members. They say:— It is refreshing to know that there are still some self-respecting sections of organised workers. Who are these self-respecting sections of the organised workers? Men who refuse to go to the front to find out what their comrades want in order to defend themselves! This is the paper which attacks anybody—it does not matter whether he is a Minister of the Crown, a trade union official, or a Labour Member of Parliament. Labour Members of Parliament have been constantly attacked. The paper attacks them without distinction whenever they counsel the workmen to do their best to increase the output of the munitions of war. I do not know what an Act of Parliament is good for if a paper of this kind is to be allowed to go on circulating matter of this sort. They proceed to give a grave description of the way in which trade union rights have been filched, and how this great capitalist conspiracy endeavours to enslave men. Then the article winds up—this is 20th November—with a great appeal to the workers in the Clyde Valley to organise with the workers outside in order to strike, and strike hard, against proposals of this kind. I could give many more instances, but I do not wish to weary the House. Whatever may be said about the "Globe," there was nothing in the "Globe" which could compare with a good many of the quotations I have given. By the way, it is rather interesting to give the line which this paper is taking, and the attitude which it took in regard to the "Globe." The quotation is an extraordinarily interesting one. They have no sympathy with the "Globe"; they say so distinctly. This is what they say about the "Globe" when the "Globe" was suppressed—this "Forward":— We wee no tears for the fall of the 'Globe.' We laugh at the fiery 'slosh' penned about the freedom of the Press— I wonder whether they appreciate my hon. Friend's "slosh"?

Mr. PRINGLE

They appreciate yours!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No, they do not. for we know how the Press is owned, and controlled and subsidised. … As to that, I think we know something. Here, at any rate, is a paper which has no sympathy with the suppression of freedom of speech, and with the closing down of the Press. I could go on and read endless quotations. I do not know whether I have quoted anything from the "Vanguard." The "Vanguard," which is printed by this press, also deals with that very issue: We warn the workers that Lloyd George is coming to the Clyde to hoodwink them into accepting the introduction of unskilled men and women; that this means weakening the unions, and then their ultimate paralysis. If that is true—if workmen will accept that opinion, then the result is that 200,000 or 300,000 unskilled men and women whom we regard as essential to turn out these big guns and munitions of war can never be allowed to enter the workshops. The "Forward" says the time has come to abandon the defensive and to take the offensive. What does that mean? It was interpreted in the following two or three days by one of the most senseless strikes that ever took place in any works. That is the state of things. These are the papers my hon Friend champions. I ask him, does he approve them? I think I am entitled to ask whether my hon. Friend approves of the line which this paper—

Mr. PRINGLE

As my right hon. Friend is putting a question to me—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I have not finished. I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman who is going to speak later on approves of this advice which is given by the "Forward." We have not had a single word of repudiation of the advice and counsel given by the "Forward" to the trade unionists of the Clyde Valley.

Mr. PRINGLE

I said I did not agree with it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I must say the repudiation was—

Mr. PRINGLE

I think I am entitled to correct the right hon. Gentleman. When he was conversing with an hon. Member, I made it perfectly clear I did not agree with that paper, and that it had constantly attacked me.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is a very different thing. Of course my hon. Friend does not agree with papers that attack him. What I want to know is whether he approves of this counsel and advice constantly given by the "Forward" and the "Vanguard" to the workmen of the Clyde Basin, not to allow unskilled men and women to go into the yards to turn out big guns and munitions?

Mr. PRINGLE

You know perfectly well I do not.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Well, I am pleased we have got something out of this, and I hope his hon. Friend who sits below him, and who, I think, is going to take part in this Debate, and who, with due respect to my hon. Friend, has perhaps more influence with this particular section than he has—

Mr. PRINGLE

How do you know?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes, I do know. I should like to know whether he approves of this advice given?

Mr. ANDERSON

I will tell you.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

So long as this advice is followed, I say frankly you cannot supply the Army in the field with the necessary munitions. I do not object to a Parliamentary "rag"—not in the least. I know exactly what my hon. Friend is getting at, and I do not object to it. I do not object in the least to a Parliamentary "rag," and least of all when I am the object of it. There are times for that kind of thing, but things are much too serious now. If my hon. Friend sat here as the Minister of Munitions or the Minister for War and saw the true proportion of these things and how much depended upon it he would have been in a less hurry to champion papers of this kind that interfere with munitions that mean life and death to our men in the trenches. These are not suitable matters for Parliamentary sport. We are dealing in tragedies, and I am doing my best to save them, and I am working hard with the whole of the strength and power I possess, and if my hon. Friends think they could do it better I shall be happy to give it up to any man, but as long as I am doing it at the request of the men who are fighting at the front, and it is a request from them, I am entitled to be helped and not to be harried. I want to say again that upon whether this proposal, backed up by all the trade union leaders and suggested by them, is carried out depends the lives of hundreds of thousands of gallant fellows at the front. It might very well be that the life of this Empire depends upon it, and I think the least we are entitled to ask is that men who on the floor of this House have sworn allegiance and asserted their determination to help their King and country against their enemies. At any rate, instead of championing those who by their action are doing their best to help the King's enemies, they should help us to sweep away hindrances to the victory of our native land.

Mr. ANDERSON

The prosecution of the Scottish "Forward" I do not think could have taken place under more unfortunate circumstances. Though the Minister of Munitions speaks with acceptance in this House the impresson has been created amongst the working classes throughout the Clyde, to whom the right hon. Gentleman went to establish a clear understanding, that this newspaper has been suppressed because of the report of a meeting in that journal. When I heard that the Minister of Munitions was going down there to speak to the workpeople face to face I was very glad, and I think it should have been done many months ago, and if it had some of the great faults of the first Munitions Act might possibly have been prevented. If you are going to extend the Defence of the Realm Acts in a general way to all who cause disaffection, those who make blunders in legislation and cause disaffection might also come under the scope of an Act of that sort. I am not defending and I do not defend anything and everything that may have appeared in "Forward," but I do not want to get a heated statement in this House in regard to these matters; if need for it, there ought to be a fair and judicial trial. I take one point of the Minister of Munitions which I am able to verify and check from the present issue of "Forward." Some man writes a letter to a paper and the paper, perhaps as a matter of bad editorial judgment, publishes it. If all these extracts are read to us we are not, therefore, able to note what is the real importance or value of them. I understood from the Minister of Munitions that someone had said that the workpeople must have complete control of the workshops and the factories, and that unless they had there would be no question of a scheme of dilution of labour. I will read what actually was said to see whether that is right or wrong. The speech was made by Mr. Kirkwood, the man referred to by the Minister of Munitions. What does he say? He says:— They, as Socialists, welcomed dilution of labour, which they regarded as a natural development in industrial conditions. They were not like Luddites of another generation who smashed the new machinery. But this scheme of dilution must be carried out under the control of the workers. The scheme of dilution, not the workshops. If you are going to dilute labour the workpeople must have some share in the control of the distribution of labour. He wound up by saying:— They recognised that if they did not control cheap labour would be introduced, and, unless their demand was granted, they would fight the scheme to the death. I say that that is quite different from that which was presented to the House by the Minister of Munitions.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

My hon. Friend should read the leading article as well; that is the point— Dilution of labour without the workers' control in the workshops would speedily mean a permanent deterioration in working-class standards of life.

Mr. ANDERSON

I am not sure that this is a matter of argument and of opinion. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not even understand the argument. I know about this propaganda, perfectly well, and the right hon. Gentleman has an entirely wrong idea even of the propaganda itself. I am not a Syndicalist in any sense, but those who are advocating this are advocating, in regard to workshops of controlled establishments, that the workpeople should share in the control, and they say that a large number of the labour difficulties would disappear if the workpeople shared in the control of these establishments. That may be entirely foolish and entirely wrong, but it is not a matter for criminal proceedings or for the suppression of a newspaper. We have got a great number of various quotations gathered together. When were these quotations collected? They have been collected since the suppression of the newspaper. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Certainly, I do. The thing was brought to my notice early in November. I did not prosecute at that date because I was very loth to prosecute the paper or to take any steps against it. The notice of the military authorities had been called to it before, and they had got all these quotations.

Mr. ANDERSON

It is a strange thing that as far back as last July the paper was allowed to make an attack upon the King It was not until it attacked or gave a report of the speech of the Minister of Munitions that action was taken. It was allowed to attack the King, but it was not allowed to report a speech made by the Minister of Munitions. If there is any doubt upon that point, it is a fact, as the hon. Member for Lanarkshire said, that the police in Glasgow to-day are actually going round asking for the lists of newspapers and those who subscribe to this journal, visiting their private houses when they are at work, and asking the wife or the mother to hand over not the copy attacking the King but the copy reporting the speech made by the Minister of Munitions and the various interruptions made; that copy and that copy alone. That is why I say it is particularly unfortunate that if the thing had to be done it should have been done in this particular way. The Minister of Munitions asked me whether I support these terrible things with reference to the introduction of skilled labour under any and every circumstance, and whether I advocate strikes? I have said in this House time after time, and I have said in the country, I have said at meetings of workpeople and trade unionists that I do not want to see a strike so long as the country is involved in this War. I say also that I think it is beyond doubt necessary that there should be modifications of rules and conditions that obtain in ordinary times that are not applicable to the present circumstances. But, while I believe it is essential that it should be done, you are not going to get it by suppressing criticism. Even if it sometimes be uninformed criticism, it is far better that it should be answered wisely and well than that you should create the opinion among the workpeople that you are going to impose these things upon them and that no one is going to be allowed to make any sort of criticism. I believe that criticism is essential, and even if it be misinformed it is well that it should be allowed to go on. I believe that the speech of the Minister of Munitions will not help matters so far as the Clyde is concerned. I have been receiving during the day telegrams from the Clyde which I propose to read. There they believe this paper has been suspended because of what it contained about the meetings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who told them so?"] They were told by the Under-Secretary for War that "Forward" was suppressed at the instigation of the Minister of Munitions. They did not know before that it was part of the business of the Minister of Munitions to suppress newspapers. They thought that duty belonged to the legal Department. When they were told that the Minister of Munitions had taken over the work of suppressing newspapers they naturally associated the act with this particular copy, and when the police went round to their homes that confirmed the suspicion that this was the case. "Who told them?" I am asked.

Mr. R. MCNEILL

Mr. Pringle told them.

Mr. ANDERSON

The Under-Secretary for War told them.

The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)

No!

Mr. ANDERSON

The Under-Secretary for War said nothing more than that the matter was undertaken by the competent military authorities at the instigation of the Minister of Munitions. That, I believe to be a perfectly truthful account, and that was the impression conveyed to these people. Here are the telegrams I have received:— At a labour conference attended by 400 delegates yesterday in Glasgow, the delegates protested against the suppression of 'forward.' (Signed) TAYLOR. Then the Clyde workers committee wire—it is no use pretending that the committee does not exist, and if you say that ought to be suppressed in my opinion you are courting disaster— The Ciyde workers' committee emphatically protests against the suppression of 'Forward,' and demands the withdrawal of restrictions. Is this paper going to have the right of trial? Is it temporarily suspended, or is it suspended altogether? What is its position at the present time? I was hoping that the visit of the Minister of Munitions to Glasgow was going to do good, but it has done a great deal of harm. It has left matters worse than they were before. That meeting cost £ 1,000 of public money, for each of the delegates was paid 6s.of public money to attend. That meeting, so far from doing any good, has done infinite harm, and has left a deeper feeling of discontent behind it. I am sorry it should be so, because I believe that those who have embarked, in regard to workpeople, by means of Munition Acts and in other ways, upon a policy of industrial compulsion, and who are now going to try to enlarge that scheme of industrial compulsion inside a Bill which is supposed to be dealing with military matters, are embarking upon the wrong road. I am convinced from that standpoint that if the "Forward" newspaper had to be dealt with it could not have been dealt with in a more unhappy way, or in a way mare likely to do harm so far as the Clyde workers are concerned.

Captain CAMPBELL

I seldom press myself upon the House, and I will only to do so to-night for two or three minutes. I am actually one of only two soldiers left here to-night. The only question before us is not what are you going to do with the "Forward" and what is the policy of the "Forward," but what does that policy mean, and how does it affect the War? The thing is to get on with the War and banish everything that retards the progress of the War. I have had occasion several times to make criticisms of a military character during this War, but I have never done so in this House. I have found in the Ministry of Munitions, in the Inventions Department, and in the War Office ample opportunity for a Member of Parliament to make clear his views to the advantage of his country and of the Empire. The electorate of this country is becoming rather sick of the voluminous verbiage which distinguishes hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway opposite. We want business. I rise to support the Minister of Munitions, a man who, I must say, I have never supported before, and who I see no reason to support for his past history, but who I see every week deserves support for the honest and businesslike endeavour he is making for the carrying out of this campaign. Unity is desirable. Why do hon. Members opposite endeavour to convey to foreign nations that we are not united at the present time? I tell the House frankly that if I had the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) in my battalion at the front he would be strung up by the thumbs before he had been there half an hour

Mr. OUTHWAITE

How many of your battalion would undertake to do it?

Captain CAMPBELL

I would leave that task to myself, even though I have the use of only one arm, having lost the use of the other one in a task which the hon. Member for Hanley would never dream of attempting or daring to risk. Let me take an example from the rest of the Empire. In Canada we have differences of opinion about the conduct of the War and about Conscription, and we see in this country this Mother of Parliaments with differences of opinion. What deduction do they draw from that? They draw the deduction of a very bad example.

It being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.