§ Mr. PRINGLEThe question with which I intend to deal on the Adjournment is somewhat different from that which has already engaged the attention of the House, but it is one which has some resemblance to it in one important respect. It resembles it in this important respect, that it very considerably affects the view of a considerable body of people in America as well as Ireland and Great Britain. I have already raised on an Adjournment Motion the question of the suppression of the "Nation" newspaper. It is not my intention to-night to enter into the merits of the controversy. I think the discussion we had on Tuesday, a week ago, clearly showed on which side the merits lay. On that occasion we had a defence from the Prime Minister and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but no unofficial Member of the House of Commons had a word to say in defence of the high-handed, arbitrary and ill-advised action of the Government. Only two things would I say on the general issue. In the first place, I would say the whole case at that time made for the Government was based on a single sentence, in a single article wrenched from its context —an article so ambiguous in interpretation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), a devoted and slavish adherent of the Prime Minister, gave a different interpretation from the Prime Minister himself. The second point I would make in regard to it is that on that occasion an entirely misleading account was given of the view of the "Nation" newspaper in relation to the War. It was represented that the "Nation" newspaper was a peace paper —a paper which advocated peace on the basis of a deadlock. Neither of those propositions can be maintained by anybody who has consistently read that paper. The "Nation" newspaper has never held the deadlock view on the Western front or advocated a premature peace.
2711 What I wish to refer to to-night are two points which have arisen out of questions raised during the Debate. During the Debate on Tuesday of last week both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House claimed that they were justified in their action in suppressing the foreign circulation of the "Nation" newspaper because of representations made from Headquarters in France, and in the course of the Debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly quoted the name of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)The Prime Minister.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI said the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very accurate in my statements. My hon. Friend will observe exactly what I said. I said the Prime Minister referred to representations made from Headquarters in France, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly quoted the name of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. A question was subsequently put on Monday of this week by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott). He asked the Prime Minister:
In view of the fact that the suppression of the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' newspaper has been justified on the ground that the Commander-in-Chief in France wrote personally saying that it was most discouraging to the soldiers that things of this kind should be published, whether he will publish the letter referred to?My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied:The answer is in the negative.I then put this supplementary question:Is it because it is stated from France that no request was made from headquarters to have the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' suppressed?My hon. Friend replied:If such a statement was made, it is quite untrue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1017. col. 2031.]To-day a question was again put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton:To ask the Prime Minister whether the letter from headquarters in France making representations with regard to the effect of the circulation of the 'Nation' newspaper among the soldiers was from the Commander-in-Chief personally or from some of the department at headquarters; whether the Commander-in-Chief had personal cognisance of it; and what was its date?The answer to-day made by my hon. Friend was:It wag not signed by the Commander-in-Chief personally, but emanated from the branch of his staff charged with conveying his views on such 2712 subjects. It was dated the 12th March. It is not known whether the Commander-in-Chief had personal cognisance of it.That is the whole point. A great many people, when they heard the name of the of the Commander-in-Chief quoted, were deeply concerned to think that in the midst of the tremendous operations now going' on in France he should have been considering a single sentence in a single article of the "Nation." We thought it was a very grave reflection upon the Commander-in-Chief, and we thought it a strange thing that the Government should have dragged in his name. Indeed, the dragging in of his name could only have been justified by the weakness of the case they had to put. We now know that no representation was made by the Commander-in-Chief, that the Government did not know whether the Commander-in-Chief ever saw the article or not, and we know also that the Commander-in-Chief never made any request for the suppression of the "Nation" newspaper.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONHow do you know?
§ Mr. PRINGLEI know it for a fact. Can my hon. Friend say to-day that he has seen the letter? I will give way to him. I have given him a fair opportunity.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am going to reply in a moment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI have given the hon. Member a fair opportunity to answer that question.
§ Mr. RONALD McNEILLWhy should he?
§ Mr. PRINGLEAs a matter of ordinary courtesy in the Debate.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am going to reply to my hon. Friend in a moment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy hon. Friend interrupted me earlier when I was not asking a question, and when I do ask a question I expect the courtesy of a reply.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy hon. Friend is always asking questions.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am here for that. I did not join the Government, like my hon. Friend, in order to preserve the freedom of interrogation, and I make bold to say this, that my hon. Friend did not give an entirely correct account of the situation. 2713 I ask him to-day to take an opportunity of correcting that statement. I know quite well what has happened probably better than my hon. Friend. I wonder if my hon. Friend knew that the Army Council had taken action in this matter. He probably will not answer that because it is inconvenient. The fact is that the Department which looks after newspapers and articles in France wrote a letter calling attention to an article in the "Nation" newspaper and other articles at the same time, and this general reference has been used by those who wish to suppress the "Nation" newspaper for bolstering up their high-handed and tyrannical action I wish to make it clear that the Commander-in-Chief had nothing to do with this action, and I wish to dissociate his name from it. I regard this matter as one of very great importance.
In the course of the Debate last week I made it clear that the uppression of the foreign circulation of the "Nation" was important, not because of what it suppressed, but because of its effect on great Allied nations. I then made reference to Russia. I can tell my hon. Friend, who probably does not know anything about foreign newspapers, that the editor of the "Nation" has received from the Embassy in Petrograd a letter thanking him for the part he took in the revolution, and yet some jack-in-office at the War Office, who has no conception of our standing with the great Republics of Russia and the United States, ignores all these questions. I put a question to-day with special reference to the United States:
To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the message of the 'Times' correspondent in Washington, dated the 22nd of April, published in the 'Times' of the 24th instant; and whether, in view of this statement regarding American opinion, the suppression of the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' will now cease?My hon. Friend then replied:My attention has not been called specially to this case by the New York correspondent of the Times,' but I would refer the hon. Member to the decision announced on the subject by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State in another place on the 24th April.I should have thought the first duty of those who had the power to deal with the circulation of our newspapers abroad was to consider anything that came to this country from a newspaper representative so important as the correspondent of the "Times" in New York. What did the correspondent of the "Times" in New York say? He pointed out quite clearly 2714 that there were two obstacles to the most intimate and cordial relations between this country and America. One of them was the bureaucratic action of the Government in regard to the "Nation" newspaper. The other was the slowness of effecting a settlement in Ireland. In regard to the first he pointed out that the "Nation" was regarded as an organ of Liberal opinion, that it represented the views of Liberals in America, and that after all whatever might be the case here there were a great many Liberals in America, and that there was no paper which had more clearly and fairly stated the position of President Wilson than the "Nation" newspaper.
§ Mr. DEVLINWhat did Poland think?
§ Mr. PRINGLEWe know what Prussia thinks, and Poland has not much opportunity of expressing her opinion because she is living under a suppression of opinion not unlike our own. But there is more evidence than that. Actually when the "Nation" was suppressed a special request came from the American Embassy to have it sent through to the head of a great friendly nation. The same gentleman in the War Office who knows everything—
§ Mr. DEVLINNothing.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWho knows what President Wilson ought to read, suppresses the foreign circulation of the "Nation" newspaper. I have further evidence on this question. There is a great newspaper in America called the "New Republic," and it is widely known as the special organ of President Wilson, and we have to-day an opportunity of seeing what it thinks regarding the action of our Government. For the benefit of my hon. Friend whose: attention has not been specially called to it I propose to read what the "New Republic" says:
Some British official has put the London 'Nation' on the list of papers which cannot be sent to foreign countries. Having become a partner of the British Empire in a war for democracy, Americans are now forbidden to read the foremost organ of the English Liberal democracy. By issuing the order the very week America entered the War the bureaucrats certainly selected a handsome moment for this piece of grotesque stupidity. It was genial and tactful of them, for the 'Nation' is one of the two or three English publications that have consistently worked for Anglo-American co-operation. The weekly has been a conspicuous friend of this country and of the Wilson administration, and no paper in England has done more to assist America's entrance into the War.This is the paper you suppress, and you stop going to America the very paper 2715 which has done most to bring about America's intervention. I hope my hon. Friend's attention will now be specially called to this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will suppress that newspaper as well!"] The quotation proceeds:Indeed, the 'Nation' might well claim a triumph for its policy. Yet, in the very moment-when its faith in America is most completely vindicated, Americans are informed that they cannot read the 'Nation' because it would contaminate them. It is a grave discourtesy to the American Government, an act unworthy of an Ally, and a complete blunder. Those Americans who read the 'Nation' are not a great number, but they are influential. They will assume that the 'Nation's criticisms of Mr. Lloyd George's Government are responsible for the suppression. Naturally they will assume the worst. They will say that something must be going so wrong that Americans dare not be informed about it. If the present British Government had set out deliberately to put itself under suspicion it could not have done so more effectively.I hope I have now called my hon. Friend's attention especially to that matter. I know, of course, that he has no authority to reply, and I regret this. It is not possible to have an answer from him, because he cannot speak for the War Office or the War Cabinet, and on a matter of this kind, which is not a mere question of Departmental policy, we are to be fobbed off with an Under-Secretary who has no authority. I do not blame him. I know perfectly well that he would never have touched it with a 10-foot pole if he had had any control either over the policy of his Department or of the Government. I know that he is still a Liberal although he sits on that bench. I know all this, and I regret that he has to do this. I deeply regret to be up against him. But he has to do this job. It is part of the penalty and the price of a great national Government to continue the War. There are few episodes in our recent history which have done more to discredit us with those in whose eyes we should hope to stand best than this silly, cowardly, contemptible action.Everybody knows that the ostensible reason put forward has nothing whatever to do with it. The single sentence in a single article in this newspaper was not the most pessimistic thing which has appeared in recent days either in the Press or in the speeches of our Ministers. The speech of the Prime Minister at the American luncheon was a far more pessimistic performance than this article in the "Nation." The speech made to-day by the President of the Board of Trade on the submarine menace was one 2716 of the most gloomy, melancholy announcements ever made by a British Minister. It was more deserving of suppression than anything that has ever appeared in the "Nation." The unfortunate thing is that it is only too true. These things all prove conclusively that it was not that sentence, and not that article, but a desire to penalise the paper for its Liberalism and for its independence. An official, an understrapper, believed that he would be in favour with those who were setting authority over him. Two things are now proved. First of all, the Commander-in-Chief in France had nothing to do with this. His name has been dragged into it gratuitously and unfairly, and to bolster up the Government action. In the second place, if this Government is going to have any regard for the good name of this country, and is anxious to preserve good relations with our two greatest democratic-Allies—namely, Russia and the United States—not one day should pass before this stupid, idiotic action is reversed.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe House, I feel sure, will not expect mo to reply to the series of personal attacks upon myself by the hon. Member who has just spoken. He referred to me as remaining a Liberal although on this bench, and as trying to carry through a job. Long before I sat on this bench I did my level best, without being a paid servant of His Majesty, to do what I could in the interests of the. House, and the House knows that I did not waste my time in embarrassing Ministers and in making things uncomfortable and impossible for men endeavouring to do their work as it was possible to make them.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe hon. Member referred to some jack-in-office at the War Office, who, upon the mere chance of getting some preferment, wished to stifle a Liberal newspaper. I think he went on to speak of an understrapper. I protest against any such allusion to a distinguished public servant. What are the true facts of the case? This is simply and solely an administrative act done by the competent military authority under powers given to this competent military authority by this very House of Commons.
§ Mr. PRINGLEUnder false pretences.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI do not believe that the gallant gentleman whose order this was has ever heard of the editor of 2717 The "Nation," and I question if anyone in that Department has ever read that paper in his life.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat may be so.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI heard my hon. Friend throughout, and I say this advisedly: I do not believe for a single moment that anyone in that Department knew the editor of the "Nation," or of the personal animosity that is said to have existed between him and the Prime Minister. I do not believe that any personal consideration of any sort entered into this question at all. It was done by the competent military authority, after he had considered the article and the series of articles himself, after he had received a letter from the Home Office drawing his attention to this particular article, and after the Foreign Office had drawn his particular attention to it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe Foreign Office?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe Foreign Office. I say it again, advisedly. After the Foreign and the Propaganda Department of the Foreign Office had drawn his particular attention to it. Even then he did not take action. He took action, and again I say it advisedly, after he had received a letter of the 12th March from the General Headquarters in France mentioning, not as my hon. Friend suggested many other papers and not the "Nation," but the "Nation" expressly, and enclosing, underlined, the articles referred to, and pointing out the fact that they were undesirable, and had a pernicious influence upon the troops at the front. My hon. Friend went further and said that for the sake of our argument in the Debate which he raised on the Adjournment we expressly mentioned the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig.
§ Mr. DEVLINDoes the hon. Gentleman suggest that the troops at the front read a sixpenny weekly journal?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI say nothing of the kind. That is entering into the merits of the case, and I will deal with it when I come to the merits of the case. The letter which we received from General Headquarters in France expressly mentioned the "Nation," and no other newspaper, and drew particular attention to 2718 these articles, namely, the article of 3rd March, and I think the article of 10th March. My hon. Friend comes forward to-night and tells the House that for the sake of the influence which it would have upon the Debate we introduced the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. The House knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister never mentioned the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig during the course of his speech. I have a quotation of his speech here.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe Leader of the House did.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am coming to that. It was the Prime Minister who gave the Government reply, and what he did say was that the letter from General Headquarters in France was substantially the statement made by the various Government Departments which I have enumerated. My hon. Friend, with his well-known love for the Prime Minister which he always shows, would have used the Prime Minister's name to-night if he had thought that he could do so to his detriment. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend intervenes in Debate probably as often as anybody, and he knows the custom of the House. He knows that the main speech on behalf of the Government that night was delivered by the Prime Minister, and if he really could have attacked the Government by showing that the Prime Minister had used the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig he would have done so. For the purpose of his argument, he goes to a very uncertain reference in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was not the main speech in the Debate. I will read what he said:
Mr. Churchill: He wrote personally on the subject?He was referring to the Commander-in-Chief in France.Mr. Bonar Law: I think he wrote personally. It came from headquarters.My hon. Friend bases the whole of his speech upon that.
§ Mr. PRINGLENo, I did not. Read on.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI will read on:
Mr. Bonar Law: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee has spoken—and I think it rather interests the House—of a Government wishing to exercise arbitrary powers. That is very interesting, coming from him. I have no doubt bethinks he is a much better judge of what is important than the Commander-in-Chief.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHear, hear! The Commander-in-Chief!
§ Mr. MACPHERSONLet me finish the quotation:
But I am not sure that the House of Commons agrees with him. This is the fact"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1917, col. 1631.]I am going to deal with the interruption of the hon. Member. I have read the passage from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. He made it perfectly plain that he did not know whether the letter came from the Commander-in-Chief. That point was expressly put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, and he said it came from Headquarters. That is how Sir Douglas Haig comes to be spoken of. It is a common way of referring to any letter that comes from Headquarters in France to say that it comes from the Commander-in-Chief. Anybody who has any knowledge either of commands or of any Government Department knows that when we refer to a letter as coming from the Secretary of State for War that it is not actually written by the Secretary of State for War, but by a particular branch which is entirely under the control in the matter referred to, of the Secretary of State for War. To come forward and base an argument of this sort upon a statement of that kind really passes the bounds of my comprehension. The hon. Member went on to say that the case of the Government was based upon a single sentence. I tell my hon. Friend that that had nothing at all to do with it. The single sentence that was most quoted appears to me to be one of the worst sentences in the article. I have the article here and would refer any hon. Member here who would care to read it to the article of 3rd March. It is not a case of a single sentence; the whole article is bad from beginning to end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] It is bad taken as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was hard pressed for time, did draw particular attention to one sentence. I must confess, whatever the exegesis, as we should say in theological Scotland, of that passage might be from the point of view of the "Nation," from the point of view of the ordinary soldier when you say that the soldiers were found wanting and that the honours were with the enemy, there is only one interpretation possible.10.0 P.M.
My hon. Friend went on to say we received no representations at all from the 2720 Commander-in-Chief. I think I have met that point. Let me come to the last point of all, which I understood was the main reason why this Debate was to take place, namely, that the "Times" correspondent in New York had laid special emphasis on the fact that the "Nation" had had an embargo placed upon its exportation. What are the facts? That was merely a simple expression of opinion. Nobody knows whether it is true or not. I would like to ask my hon. Friend if he can assure the House that the "Times" correspondent knew what the real facts were? Did the "Times" correspondent at that time know that a Debate had taken place in this House? Did the "Times" correspondent in New York know that the Foreign Office, the Propaganda Department of the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and General Headquarters in France had said that this article which was published in the "Nation," which was a continuation of other articles of the same sort, had a pestilential effect upon the morale of our troops? Before he made this statement, did he assure himself that the "Times" correspondent knew these facts? Unless my hon. Friend can assure the House that he did know them, his contention to-night is without any foundation. I do not think the hon. Gentleman raised any other point. He said he was not going into the merits of the case, but he did find an opportunity again of going into the merits. The point he seemed to rely on was that this action was due to the arbitrary and ill-advised judgment of a single individual. I have already met that point.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThat was a Report issued from 10, Downing Street.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAs to the distinguished Gentleman upon whose orders this was done, if he had not done as he has done, after the representations made to him by the men whose interest in the troops who are fighting for us in France is greater than the interest of any other man, by the Foreign Office and the Home Office, he would be lacking in his duty, and would not be competent to perform the duty he has been called upon to perform by the War Office. My hon. Friend tried to make the House believe that I have been inconsistent in what I stated in the House on Monday. His remarks were not so politely put at Question Time to-day, but the House is accustomed to 2721 his polite utterances. I should like to recall what actually did occur, both for my own personal satisfaction and the satisfaction of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott) asked if we would publish the letter referred to. I said:
The answer is in the negative.Mr. Pringle: Is it because it is stated from France that no request was made from headquarters to have the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' suppressed?I replied:If such a statement was made, it is quite untrue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1917, col. 2031.]How what I said to-day conflicts with that passes my comprehension. I have already said, and so had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we had received that letter from Headquarters in France mentioning one paper only, and pointing out the pernicious and pestilential effects these utterances had upon the troops, and I had that point in my mind. I ask the House to believe that what I did say was true both in substance and in fact.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Debate (Mr. Pringle), and so far as I could follow him he made two points on the subject, and made them very badly. The first point he attempted to make was that the letter which was said to have come from Headquarters did not come in the personal handwriting of the Commander-in-Chief. I must say that I was very much surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have thought it worth while to make a point of that sort. I should have thought he would have been acquainted with the words
"Qui facit per alium facit per se."
§ Mr. PRINGLEHe has disowned it.
§ Mr. McNEILLHe has not disowned it. We know this letter came from General Headquarters in France, and that is the only material point.
§ Mr. McNEILLI am afraid I cannot give way to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. McNEILLThe hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) has had a very fair share of time. The other point he made was with regard to the effect on American opinion. There, again, I think that is a very bad point, and it appears to me a most extraordinary habit that this House appears to be slipping into to consider it necessary to have our policy in this country governed by foreign opinion. We have had it not merely with regard to my hon. Friend, but with regard to questions below the Gangway. I am most anxious, as we all are, to stand well with our friends in other countries, and indeed with all the world, but I repudiate the idea that in matters of domestic policy we ought to let ourselves be guided by criticisms in foreign countries. My hon. Friend read some very scathing remarks on the action of the Government drawn from the well-known American newspaper, the "New Republic," which I often read with great interest. But what would be thought in America if some paper of equal standing in this country took it upon itself to lecture the President, Congress, and the administration in America on the conduct of affairs in America? I have no hesitation in saying that there would be very great friction if we ventured to use the same freedom towards America that they think it well to use towards us. So far as this House is concerned, while I desire to stand well with American opinion I should not be guided in the slightest degree by criticisms of the American Press or statements of newspaper correspondents as to opinion in America on our action. I believe too much in the robust common sense of the American people to think that they will take offence at our wishing to guide our domestic policy as they do their own, for our own reasons and independent of foreign criticisms. Those are the only two points the hon. Gentleman has made.
I could not but be struck in his speech by the evidence of how these Scottish Liberal members resemble the early Christians in the love they have one for the other. [Interruption.] The hon. Members who still sit on the Scottish mountain are now separated from the Front Bench and my hon. Friend who sits hero (Mr. MacCallum Scott). They are all separated now, but they still occasionally act together. I notice that my hon. Friend who is sitting here was very useful the other night in preventing a Division. I think the hon. Gentleman who introduced 2723 the Motion to-night spoke about the feeling in the House the other night when no independent Member got up to speak for the Government. I think that must have been because the whole House felt that they were quite prepared to show their support of the Government in the Division Lobby, and that it was quite unnecessary to make remarks on the Motion itself. At all events, it is quite clear that those hon. Members who introduced that Motion but who shirked taking an opinion in the Division Lobby—[Interruption]—must be very grateful to my hon. Friend who sits here. I must say that the love of these Scottish Members has taken a very curious way of showing itself, and I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite shows the great gulf that exists when one is taken and the other left. [Interruption.] I cannot either hear or follow the running comments that come from Edinburgh. I think those hon. Members have had a large 2724 share of the time of the House, and it is rather remarkable that when another hon. Member has a few minutes in which to address the House he cannot be free of running comments from that quarter. I do not, however, bear any ill-will on that point, for I should be very sorry to show the venomous hatred which my hon. Friend shows of his own hon. Friend. Now, having once shirked a Division, and brought two very bad points before the House, and having received a good answer from the Front Bench. I hope he will allow this blessed matter to sleep for the future.
It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, until To-morrow, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.
§ Adjourned at Eleven minutes after Ten o'clock.