§ Whereupon Mr. DEPOTS-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter that I have been raising from time to time at Question Time, and I would like to say at the outset that the course which I am adopting is dictated by my own views. I firmly believe that it is a duty I have, as a representative in this House, to endeavour as soon as possible to see my fellow countrymen out of the terrible ordeal they are enduring in the trenches. I believe the best way to achieve that object is to secure that, as far as possible, in time of war there shall be freedom of speech and the removal of the restrictions 1699 on the liberty of the Press and on the individual expression of convictions and views, or, at any rate, that the law as it exists shall be administered impartially for all alike. I was under the impression, and I think a good many people are under the impression, that to say anything which was of a character to depress those engaged in the great national effort, which was calculated to suggest that the effort being made by any of our Allies was not equal to that we had anticipated would be or was being made, that anything of that nature would be an offence. There is no doubt at the present time a feeling almost of terrorism abroad is due to the Defence of the Realm Act and various decisions that have been given under it. Consequently when, I think, on 10th October, the day this House met after the Recess, through the clubs in this House, down the City, and wherever one went, one heard men talking of a speech made by Lord Northcliffe and giving the statements that he had made, which, to my mind, I held to be in direct contravention of the Defence of the Realm Act, and statements of a nature which I thought were prohibited, I thought it would serve a good purpose to find out if such statements were permissible, made on such an occasion as they were made.
The first step I took on that matter was to ascertain from various sources and from men who had been there the salient facts that had been stated. I may say that, in the first place, I was provided with a memorandum by one who was present. Then another gentleman who was present and who immediately after the meeting drew up a long memorandum of all that had been said, permitted me to read his memorandum, and when I found that on certain points there was absolute agreement in the two, and especially in the matter of the figures which I had confirmed from many other sources, I felt justified in assuming that those facts and figures had been used. In order to discover what was the official view of the disclosure of such information, or if it were permissible, and so that everyone should know and have the same opportunity, I put down a question to the Secretary of State for War asking him:
Whether he can state the proportional contribution of each of the Allies to the total of the forces in the field?The hon. Gentleman will remember the scene provoked by that question. The 1700 right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said:Sir E. Carson: Before this question is answered may I ask whether this question is not calculated and intended to create friction between the Allies?The reply of the Secretary of State for War was:I should certainly consider myself very ill-advised if I gave this information.I then rose to put a supplementary question, and was howled down for several minutes, and I secured the condemnation of the Secretary for War for asking such a question, and of the House in a very emphatic manner. I submit there is no objection to asking a question for information when that question discloses nothing. The question appeared on the Paper and disclosed nothing whatever. The right hon. Gentleman had only to say that he could not give the information and the matter would be at an end. If it had been a question that had disclosed information, I could understand the censure that the House endeavoured to pass on it. On one or two occasions I have put down questions which the Ministers to whom they were addressed have asked me, to withdraw, and of course I have done so. On a recent occasion when I got an opportunity I very much desired on the adjournment of the House at the Recess, to draw attention to some facts which substantiated the position I had taken up on the War, I went to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and told him what I was going to say about a particular matter, and he asked me not to do so, and I did not do so. I was not in the question disclosing information to the enemy. I simply asked what was the proportional contribution. If the right hon. Gentleman, for example, said that one country provided a third and another a third and another a third I do not see that it would create dissension amongst the Allies, but quite the reverse. I think our contribution would have been shown to have been so great that it would have set at rest those statements made abroad, such as those in which we are told by the Germans that we are not taking our share. However, be that as it may, I then put a supplementary question as follows:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at a recent meeting in London figures were disclosed of the British forces in the field, and a proportional estimate given of the Russian forces, and can he say whether those figures were divulged by the War Office to Lord Northcliffe?That is obviously a question of which notice should be given.1701 I gave notice, and the reply was:Whatever information was disclosed at the gathering referred to, was not given by the War Office.I then asked, did those disclosures constitute a breach of the Defence of the Realm Act, and I was told that did not arise. I may say I told the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office what were the figures that had been given to me as having been disclosed by Lord Northcliffe. I put down a further question:—Whether, in view of the fact that the disclosure of the proportional contribution of the Allies to the total forces in the field would be prejudicial, his attention has been called to the disclosure by Lord Northcliffe on the 10th of October to a large gathering, of the strength of the British forces in the field and of the proportional strength of the Russian forces, and if so, whether he proposes to take any action in regard to it under the Defence of the Realm Act?Mr. Forster: As I have stated, any information which may have been given at the gathering of which the hon. Member has knowledge, was not given by the War Office, and it may have been incorrect for all that I know. My right hon. Friend's statement that the disclosure of the proportional contribution of the Allies to the total forces in the field would be prejudicial, referred to the disclosure of authentic official information. In any case, Lord Northcliffe's information was not published in the Press, nor am I aware that there was any attempt to communicate it to the enemy. I, of course, fully appreciate the hon. Member's desire that no avoidable advantage should accrue to the enemy, but it is not proposed in this instance to follow his suggestion and to institute a prosecution under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.Mr. Nothwaite: Is it not the fact that persons have been prosecuted for making statements prejudicial to recruiting in private conversation and have been fined and sent to gaol, and therefore why should not Lord Northcliffe be prosecuted for making those statements?Mr. Forster: I am not aware that anybody has been sent to gaol for making statements in private conversation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1916, cols. 556–557.]That is the particular point I desire to raise on the Adjournment. The statement here made is that not much importance is attached to the statement, because it was not authentic official information, and that in any case Lord Northcliffe's information was not published in the Press, "nor am I aware that there was any attempt to communicate it to the enemy." I want to point out the fact that less important persons than Lord Northcliffe have made very much less detrimental statements, and to show that the fact of their statements not having been published, and not having appeared in the Press, did not save them from very severe penalties. I take first of all the case of a labourer who was prosecuted for writing, which was, of course, not published. The man, apparently, had been dreaming that he had been addressing a meeting of labourers at Bristol. He evidently thought that his dream had made such an 1702 impression upon the labourers to whom he was speaking that subsequently he sat down to write out what he had dreamt he had spoken. The barrister for the defence, in proceeding to explain, said that the prisoner stayed at a lodging-house at Abertillery, that he was noticed writing, and someone looked over his shoulder, and in consequence of what was written the proceedings resulted. The judge said that if the more serious charge had been gone into and proved against the prisoner, the maximum penalty would have been the death sentence. He was willing, however, to think that the prisoner had done what he had done without any intention of doing harm. It was fortunate for the prisoner that the things he wrote never saw the light. Sentence was then passed of three months' imprisonment. Three months' imprisonment for a labourer who writes something he has dreamt, with somebody looking over his shoulder when he wrote, and who informed the police, and he gets three months' imprisonment under the Defence of the Realm Act! But in the case of Lord Northcliffe, no notice is taken, because what he said was not published in the Press! There seems to be some difference of procedure here. Here is another case of a Blackpool resident.At a special sitting of the Blackpool Police Force on Saturday afternoon, Joseph Allen Fall, fifty-eight, commercial traveller, was charged with a breach of Article 27 of the Defence of the Realm Act, in that, whilst travelling on the railway between Manchester and Liverpool, he made statements likely to cause disaffection amongst the King's subjects, and also made statements likely to prejudice recruiting in His Majesty's Forces. On returning into Court the presiding magistrate stated that they had given the case very serious consideration. Notwithstanding that the prisoner had been in the cells since Monday night last they were compelled to inflict the maximum penalty of £100, or in default, three months' imprisonment.There is the case of a private conversation overheard, and the man in consequence, though the matter has no publication in the Press, fined £100. Why, then, in view of this, does the War Office reply that Lord Northcliffe will not be prosecuted for statements made on this occasion. That is the particular point that for the moment I wish to raise, and to demand that there shall be in these matters equality of treatment. I want to read an extract from the "Daily News," showing the effect that this statement had:Incidentally such conferences with the Press as a whole do something to diminish the scandal of the constant leakages of official information in one particular direction. The question was asked in the House yesterday as to whether certain facts, or alleged facts 1703 of which notorious disclosure was made at a recent luncheon in London, were divulged through the War Office to Lord Northcliffe. We have no knowledge of the circumstances under which the information thus disseminated was obtained. What is much more important is to ask why one habitually privileged person is permitted with impunity to deliver a speech making grievous reflection on one of our Allies at a function which, if it was not public, was at any rate not so private as to prevent the speech in question immediately becoming a matter of common knowledge and general comment in the City of London.That statement, of course, is made by a rival paper, but it is made, and it is open to Lord Northcliffe to bring an action against the "Daily News." This luncheon, as I understand, was one at which were present upwards of 500 persons— journalists, advertisement agents, and Members of this House, There was an audience particularly suitable for the dissemination in every direction of news and facts. Lord Northcliffe had just returned from the front. I presume he had been in very close association with the Commander-in-Chief in the Field. He had been with French Ministers. He had also been on the Italian front. He came back charged with confidential information. He delivered his speech, I understand, for the purpose of letting his audience know special facts that had come to his knowledge, and to relate these facts for the purpose of showing that it was essential that compulsion should be enforced upon Ireland.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIt is very strange that the persons who were there, and who have informed me by way of separate memoranda that the question of Ireland was mentioned at this luncheon, have drawn upon their memory! It was in connection with the need for greater efforts on the part of this country and Ireland. Certain facts were related, but the right hon. Gentleman, who was there, and who took some friends with him, with whom I have not communicated, except, perhaps, with one exception, can give his statement of the case when I sit down, and his impression of what his friend Lord Northcliffe said. I now go on to state what I have been informed Lord Northcliffe said, and which, as I said, I raise for the purpose of getting equality of treatment for all. I am in one difficulty. I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to it. I understand that Lord Northcliffe disclosed the number and strength of the British 1704 forces in the field. I have been informed at the War Office that they have not given these figures to Lord Northcliffe, and that therefore they are not official; therefore it follows that it does not matter his having stated them. But I understand that Lord Northcliffe with the statement of these figures associated the name of General Sir Douglas Haig, and therefore I do not know whether I should be justified in stating in this House the figures disclosed by Lord Northcliffe when there is in my mind the impression that perhaps they are official, through having been disclosed by General Sir Douglas Haig. The right hon. Gentleman knows the figures, as I have communicated them to him through his secretary. If he objects to me stating them, if he thinks that it is unwise, under the circumstances, to associate the disclosure with the name of General Haig, and that I should not state the figures, I shall be quite willing not to do so. It is not a very material point. What is more material, what is essential, and what I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss and inquire into is, whether these figures were disclosed to Lord Northcliffe by General Sir Douglas Haig, and whether, as has been stated, General Sir Douglas Haig told Lord Northcliffe that he saw no objection to their disclosure. A very serious matter arises out of this, and that is the position of Parliament itself. Why should such facts be disclosed to Lord Northcliffe for dissemination at a dinner and be withheld from the House of Commons. If I bad put down a question asking for these figures I would have been howled down in this House, and the cry of "pro-German" would have been raised.
I come to what I think is in one way a more serious matter, and one with which I want particularly to deal, because it cannot be the disclosure of official information. I have, therefore, no hesitation whatever in stating what I am told Lord Northcliffe said as to the number of Russian forces in the field. I understand that Lord Northcliffe said that the Russian forces in the field were less than one-half of the British forces in the field. He went on to deliver an opinion of no complimentary nature upon a particular official. If Lord Northcliffe is to be permitted to state the number of the Russian forces in the field, and to criticise them in this way for his own particular political purpose, which is to demand that every Englishman and every Irishman shall be dragged out to the shambles, I want to know if I have 1705 the right, from my point of view, to speak I If this be true, this dissemination far and wide by Lord Northcliffe that our numbers in the field are double that of Russia— and I have been informed by some figures given me from the Front Bench that Russia began the War with 14,700,000 men of military age—am I then not also to be permitted to argue that our effort should be in the direction of keeping our men in our factories for the purpose of supplying the great man-power of Russia with the means of conducting the War? That is what I want to know. If I make such statements, will I be immune from the Defence of the Realm Act? It is a matter of great importance to me, and has been again and again, because it has been suggested that I may, or may not, represent my Constituency. As a matter of fact, I have not heard so much as one word of protest from my Constituents. Not that I mean for a single moment that my Constituents, of necessity, agree with my views. I have always said, "You cannot judge of my views on the question." Give me immunity from the Defence of the Realm Act and I will have meetings throughout Hanley. Give me immunity, such as that given to Lord Northcliffe, and I will call together my Constituents, 500 by 500, and say what I have to say to them, and I shall be very glad to have this particular immunity. I want to show in what I am saying that I am raising this question so that there shall be immunity and equality of treatment all round, equality of treatment for the humblest individual as well as this autocrat who boasts that he has Cabinet Ministers under his control—yes, and others.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI pass on. At the luncheon Lord Northcliffe, following what I have described, seems to have dealt with our expedition in the East. I would have hesitated to ask about or to refer to it, but, as we have seen, this great victory and great success at Monastir, it only makes what Lord Northcliffe said more ridiculous, perhaps than serious. The important point is that, as I have been informed, Lord Northcliffe passed a very disparaging description on General Sarrail, in command of the Allied Forces in the Field in the East. Is that to be permitted to other individuals? Is that not likely to cause dissension amongst the Allies, especially at a time when we see the agony of Roumania, who 1706 has been looking to that Eastern force for succour? Is it permissible then, I say, for others than Lord Northcliffe to suggest that failure in that direction is due to the incompetency of a general in command? It would not matter a little if I went on to a platform and said it. It would matter nothing, I should think; but you would put me in gaol for it, all the same, under the Defence of the Realm Act. But here is Lord Northcliffe coming straight back from France, from communing with French Ministers, and, knowing strange stories attaching to the view of Ministers in this matter, he comes back to state what he has heard from confidential sources. Therefore, as hon. Members opposite by their cheers just now suggested that I should be prosecuted if I made such a statement, why do not they have Lord Northcliffe by the heels? I am not asking that they should. I am asking that there should be freedom for all. I am hailing him as a great liberator in restoring to us our freedom, but I am going to see that he gives us freedom as well as securing it for himself.
I think that I have, at least, said enough to show that the statements made by Lord Northcliffe were, at any rate, a sensation. If those statements are in no way even to be censured, it seems to me that we may go to France, if we have the opportunity, or we may find somebody who has been in France—a soldier in an unguarded moment may disclose facts—and then, having secured the facts as to the number of the British forces in the field and the proportion in the firing line, we may call together a great gathering, and, so long as there is no publication in the Press, we may inform them of these facts and we may question the competency of the great general in command. I believe Lord Northcliffe was able to give some interesting information as regards influences operating in the present strange and anomalous position in Greece. The hon. and learned Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) frequently brings up questions virtually suggesting that we should get rid of King Constantine, and the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) frequently makes fervid orations on the question. I have even noticed, in his replies, that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs always seems to be in a somewhat embarrassed position. I can understand that if what Lord Northcliffe said were true. The Russian Government had intervened to prevent us from 1707 putting pressure upon King Constantine. The Czar virtually said "Hands off my cousin the King." Is it to be permitted to others besides Lord Northcliffe to make such statements as these? That is what I ask the Secretary of State for War to tell us, because, if it is so, it should be known.
The position seems to me this: Either Lord Northcliffe has successfully defied the Defence of the Realm Act, such as most of us believe it to be, at any rate, or he has broken the Defence of the Realm Act—he has committed an offence against it. In the first place, all I ask is that, through his speech, there should be a widespread knowledge of what is permissible in public statements. If, on the other hand, he has broken the Defence of the Realm Act, then I trust he will be prosecuted. But I trust it is on the first lines, and that what will be proved is that we have greater freedom than ever we anticipated. My hope that Lord Northcliffe may prove to be a liberator and do something for the common good in the way of freedom is supported by another fact. My attention, however, has just been called to the fact that I have spoken far longer than I thought I had, and that I should not speak longer out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore I will conclude by asking him to give us a clear indication in his speech as to whether what Lord Northcliffe said is permissible to all alike, or whether in his view it is worthy of censure, condemnation, and action.
§ Mr. KINGI am sorry the Secretary of State for War does not rise to reply at once. It is a very serious question and a very serious indictment that has been raised, and I must say personally I thank the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) for having brought it forward with, I think, great ability and very good taste. But I rise only to call attention to one fact which I can deal with very briefly. This is by no means the first offence of this nature by Lord Northcliffe which has been brought before this House. I would like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to an answer given on the 21st September, 1915, when the case of Lord Northcliffe having defied the Censor in respect of the announcement he made of a great explosion at Ochta, near Petrograd, was brought up, and an answer was given by the right hon. and 1708 learned Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department. The facts then were these: There had been a very important explosion at munition factories near Petrograd. The information had come to many papers, and several papers had asked for permission to publish it, and had been refused. At last, on the 13th September, Lord Northcliffe published a full account in one of his papers, and two days after he published it in another paper. Meanwhile the papers which were respecting the Censor were applying for permission to reproduce these facts and were being refused, and so late as 16th September several papers, including the "Daily News" and the "Star," were refused permission to publish the information which had been for several days appearing in Lord Northcliffe's papers in defiance of the Censor. The matter was sent to the Public Prosecutor, and I suppose it ended there. If he had been a weaker man and less influential no doubt he would have been prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Regulation. I want to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that these repeated floutings of the censorship and the Defence of the Realm Regulation by one privileged man are unworthy of this country and are unworthy of the action of the War Office, which favours a high man supported in the Press and crushes the small man who ventures to criticise.
Sir H. DALZIELMy hon. Friend has invited me, as I happened to be at the function to which he has referred, to give my version of the proceedings, and I will endeavour to do so. I do not rise to defend Lord Northcliffe, who is quite able to take care of himself, and I do not think he need be disturbed by anything my hon. Friend has said to-night. I am glad my hon. Friend stated he wanted equality before the law, and Lord Northcliffe put in the same position as a poor man. That is exactly where I stand. Therefore, I would say that if a poor man had been guilty of breaking the defence of the realm I would produce my evidence before I found him guilty. I should not depend upon hearsay, upon anonymous slanderers who are afraid to come forward themselves, and, knowing the war enthusiasm of my hon. Friend, metaphorically pull his leg. I ask the House not accept any statement made on hearsay. We would not do it to a poor man.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEYou have done it.
Sir H. DALZIELI say there is no case of a poor man being tried and found guilty of breaking the Defence of the Realm Act on hearsay. Let us be fair, even to Lord Northcliffe. What are the facts? This was purely a private club meeting, a club of which I am a member at which Lord Northcliffe was present as a guest, and every man present was impressed with the fact that it was strictly private. There were several guests and I believe there were half a dozen Members of this House there, and I ask if there is any one of those hon. Members who will get up and say that what the hon. Member has said is true. Why do these people outside come to see my hon. friend the Member for Hanley? Why have they not got the courage to make these statements for themselves. If those statements are true, all they have got to do is to go to Bow Street, place the matter in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, and Lord Northcliffe will have to stand his trial, and I am sure he would not be afraid of defending any statements he made at that meeting. It is not fair to my hon. Friend, even with all his honest enthusiasm for the War, to make allegations in this House upon hearsay. I deny many of the statements which have been made by my hon. Friend. He stated that the remarks made were prejudicial to recruiting, but the whole of the speech was exactly to the contrary effect. The effect of the speech was to warn us that this self-complacency on the part of the Government was dangerous to the State, and that every man should make the Government realise the great task that lay before them.
Sir H. DALZIELTo my recollection, he gave no figures. I am speaking as a member of the club, and I say that we ought to have the name of the person who makes this charge. Let the man come forward and not be a coward who is supplying the memorandum. Let him go to the Public Prosecutor and supply the facts to the magistrate at Bow Street, and then Lord Northcliffe can answer the charges brought against him. It is not fair on the gossip of someone else to make a serious charge of this kind. Let the hon. Member for Hanley go and persuade the two people who supplied him with memoranda to have the courage he has himself and have Lord Northcliffe prosecuted.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEMy informants do not want Lord Northcliffe prosecuted. They only want the same treatment for all others.
Sir H. DALZIELLord Northcliffe ought to have the same opportunity as any poor man has under the Defence of the Realm Act. It is not fair to any individual that he should not have an opportunity of answering a charge made against him. With regard to the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Hanley, I think there are half a dozen hon. Members of this House who will bear me out when I say that the statement made by the hon. Member for Hanley is not a true representation of what took place at that private meeting.
§ The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George)I wish to thank the hon. Member for Hanley for his courtesy in not raising this question last night and for putting it off until to-night at my request. I have left a very important meeting in order to answer this very grave charge. What does it come to? My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) has, very fairly stated the case. I knew nothing about his speech. I heard generally that a speech had been delivered at a private club by Lord Northcliffe, but I knew nothing about what he had said. When the hon. Member for Hanley gave notice of this Question I sent my hon. and gallant Friend to ask him what was his information. If his information consists of the facts he gave at the War Office as to Lord Northcliffe's speech, I can hardly believe that Lord Northcliffe gave figures that were so grossly inaccurate. Something was said about there having been a disclosure of official information, but this information certainly could not have been disclosed, because it was utterly inaccurate and did not in the least conform to the facts of the case. To have prosecuted Lord Northcliffe for a disclosure of official information would have been to prosecute upon information given by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member has made a statement to-night on the authority of Lord Northcliffe that the Russian forces at the front are only half of ours, and that they were not efficiently officered even for those numbers. I cannot believe that Lord Northcliffe said anything of the kind, because that is not in the least correct. The suggestion is that Lord 1711 Northcliffe came straight from Sir Douglas Haig and from people who have the information, and he gave this information. He could not have done so.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI have not asked any hon. Members for information, but one hon. Member says that Lord Northcliffe could not have made any statement with regard to figures. I believe the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) was there—
§ Mr. PRINGLEI decline to make any statement.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEFirst of all, the hon. Member has to get someone who will turn King's evidence.
§ Mr. HOUSTONI was there.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf anything is said which is detrimental to the interests of the State at the present moment, as far as the Government are concerned, it makes no difference whether it is Lord Northcliffe or this poor labourer from Abertillery. Not the slightest, and I think it is important that everybody should know that. If it is a statement which is detrimental to the interests of the prosecution of the War, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no distinction would be drawn between Lord Northcliffe and anyone else. As a matter of fact, the more influential a person is the more damaging his statement must be, and we must take that fact into account. I have no information as to that meeting, and no evidence has been given. The hon. Member for Hanley was not there, and I could not prosecute on his statement—I am not reflecting upon him. I could not prosecute on the fact that he repeated statements made by somebody else. As far as the Government is concerned, there is no evidence that any statements have been made detrimental to the public interest. If evidence is placed before us, of course we shall consider it with the same impartiality whether it is Lord Northcliffe or anyone else who is concerned.
§ Mr. HOUSTONI will turn King's evidence.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI cannot believe that those figures were used because they are so inaccurate, and they are not a dis- 1712 closure of official information, but since the hon. Gentleman has repeated whether on the authority of Lord Northcliffe or of his own informants, a statement that the Russian forces at the front are only half of ours, and that they are not efficient, it is a gross inaccuracy and a reflection upon a most gallant Army. It is an exceedingly unwise statement to deliver because no Army has shown more courage, endurance and gallantry than the Russians have shown in this War, probably in any war in the whole of the history of the world. No Army has shown greater bravery than the Russian Army, and the marvellous achievements of General Brussiloff's forces at the beginning of this War, and this could not be the work of an inefficient Army. I make that statement not because I believe Lord Northcliffe could make a charge of that kind, but because it has been repeated on the authority of some anonymous informant. I take the first opportunity of refuting it, and that is the only reason why I take any notice of it at all. I think the Secretary for War should contradict that statement publicly in the assembly in which it is made. Again I say that the Government draw no distinction between the case of Lord Northcliffe and any other other person, and if the hon. Member for Hanley craves equality of treatment he will get it, and he is entitled to it.
Up to the present the hon. Member has made no case. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member, occupying three-quarters of an hour, in which he stated very fairly all the facts at his disposal, and I cannot say that there are any grounds upon which any Government can justify instituting a prosecution against Lord Northcliffe. There is no evidence of any sort or kind. The hon. Gentleman called my attention to this about a fortnight ago, but no evidence has been tendered to me since that day. He has not given me the names of his informants or of a single witness. He has not submitted to me any facts at all except the two inaccurate facts I have just mentioned. Those are the only facts, and upon that evidence I certainly could not take any action in the matter. I do not quite agree that the fact of this being a private meeting makes all that difference. There were 500 or 600 persons present, and if the hon. Member for Hanley made a statement to 500 or 600 people detrimental to the prosecution of this War, and I 1713 could get any evidence, I should certainly prosecute him. The same thing would apply to Lord Northcliffe. My hon. Friend has referred to an explosion at Petrograd and the publication of the news, but I know nothing about that particular case. He says that favouritism was shown to one particular paper or set of papers. That is obviously unjustifiable if there is a ease of that kind. It is essential that the Government in the prosecution of the War should deal out equal treatment to everybody without distinction of persons, and the same applies to 1714 newspapers, and the hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that that is what we shall do.
§ Mr. HOUSTONI was present at the luncheon, and I would say that I did not hear one word from Lord Northcliffe that might not have been published broadcast in every newspaper in the country, and I can also say that, as I did not drink any alcoholic liquor at that luncheon, I think my recollection is pretty clear.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Half after Seven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February last.