§ Mr. PRINGLE (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether the foreign circulation of the "Nation" has been stopped; if so, on what grounds?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This course was taken because articles in this journal were of a nature to help the enemy, by whom they have been widely used for propagandist purposes.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that articles on the same subject, of the same character, and to the same effect, have appeared in other newspapers, and have been used in identically the same way; and is it the case that the "Nation" has been selected for this treatment because it is the main organ of Liberal opinion in this country?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo. If any articles to the same effect are introduced in any other newspapers the same course will be adopted.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the responsibility for this action rests entirely with the War Office and whether the Home Office was consulted?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe same course has been adopted in this case as has been followed for more than a year by the late Government as well as under this Government. The action was taken by the War Office, but representations as to its necessity have been made to the War Office by the Home Office. The whole matter has been considered by the Government, who think that the action taken was necessary.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWas the matter considered by the Government before or after the action was taken?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAs I have already explained, it was taken after consultation with the Government, and in that respect precisely the same course has been adopted as has been followed for over a year.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am told I said action was taken after consultation with the Government. My answer is the reverse of that.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThen it was taken before consultation with the Government?
Mr. CHANCELLORWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether the prohibition is to be permanent or is only to apply to one issue?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAt present it applies to all issues, and obviously no other course is possible, because we cannot examine each issue. It does not, however, follow that the prohibition of any paper will continue indefinitely if the dangerous articles cease.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLCan my right hon. Friend furnish the House with some of the articles to which exception is taken in order, if for no other purpose, that every newspaper may be able to avoid such errors in the future?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWHon. Members might satisfy themselves by looking at the files, but, as a matter of fact, the whole world was informed of the nature of them by the circulation given to them by the German Government.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAre we to understand, then, that the head of an Allied State can only get the "Nation" newspaper through the Ambassador's bag?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWCertainly, if he wants it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYHow many Irish newspapers were suppressed by the late Government?
§ Mr. PRINGLEAnd how often did you protest?
§ Mr. HEALYI protested every time in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!" and "Never once!"]—and I got no help from the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLMay I repeat my question, because this is a matter of great importance, raising great questions of principle? Could the right hon. Gentleman furnish the House with the passages in the "Nation" articles to which objection was taken by the military authorities? That is a perfectly simple request.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWYes, it is a perfectly simple request, but in my opinion it is quite unnecessary. Some of the articles referred to have appeared in other newspapers, and it is not an exceptional act. What my right hon. Friend suggests is that we should make an exception because of the character of this paper.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, Sir. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we have a right to know what is the ground of objection taken.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI have already given the ground—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]— and my right hon. Friend can judge of its validity by examining the files of this journal.
§ Mr. DEVLINIf this prohibition was so absolutely essential in the national interest, why was the suppression 80 promptly repudiated by the Prime Minister?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIts suppression was never repudiated by the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. DEVLINMay I ask whether the repudiation which appeared in the "Daily Chronicle" was indicated to the public as a repudiation by the Prime Minister?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not know about that at all, but I do know that the Prime Minister did not repudiate it. As far as I can remember, the article said it had been done without the special knowledge of the Prime Minister, which is true [An HON. MEMBER: "Move the Adjournment!"]
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTIf the right hon. Gentleman will not publish those articles, will he at least state what are the specific articles to which exception was taken, in order that hon. Members interested may look them up?
§ Mr. HEALYWill the right hon. Gentleman give us the same information with regard to the Irish newspapers, especially those suppressed in the middle of the West Cork election last November by the late Government?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI see no reason why we should take any different course in this case to that taken in other cases. If hon. Members want particulars, I would refer them to the particular numbers of the "Nation" on the 3rd and the 10th of March.
§ Mr. ALDENDoes the right hon. Gentleman deny that an unfair discrimination has been made in this case compared with other newspapers'? Does he not know that statements much worse have been circulated in German newspapers over and over again from the "Times" and the "Daily Mail?"
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo, Sir; I am not aware of it, and I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would give me any instance since this Government was formed where that has happened.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the articles of the 3rd and 10th of March were expressly carrying out the secret instructions of the Press Bureau to preach pessimism in regard to the War?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am not aware of it, but I am aware that that is not a fact.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the suppression of the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' newspaper."
§ Mr. HEALYWould it be in order to add at the end of the words "and of the Irish newspapers?"
The pleasure of the House having been signified the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight this evening.