§ Question again proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, the 28th May."
Mr. SAMUEL (resuming)When the House was interrupted I was drawing my remarks to a close. I have a few more sentences which I should like to address, if I may, to the House. I was suggesting that they are doing no real service to this country who exaggerate the points of difference between us, and do not rather emphasise the essential unity which still exists. We may be quite sure that the Germans are very carefully watching the movements of public opinion in the country, and of politics in this House, and 633 that their propaganda will eagerly seize -upon any statements which tend to show that there is a weakening in our purposes, and that our endurance is approaching its limit. I venture to suggest that the articles which have appeared in some of the ultra-patriotic papers of this country have been likely to furnish German propagandist agencies with the best material they have had for some time past. It would be better in the interests of the country to emphasise—as recently did my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham—the fact that in all essentials we all stand together at this time as we did at the beginning of the War, rather than falsely to assert that such criticisms as there have been indicate a weakening of our purposes.
I am led to make these observations because of the anxiety that must to some extent, be caused by this situation on the Army. If the Army is led to feel that some turn of the political wheel may result in a Government being installed in office which would surrender the main purposes for which we are fighting—nothing, I conceive, would be more likely to take the heart out of them than that. We are so accustomed to regard the valour of our soldiers as a matter of course: we are so accustomed to read the story of their heroism, that we have almost come to assume that their steadfastness can be taken for granted. I have no doubt that that steadfastness will remain unimpaired in all circumstances. But our Armies may be subjected in the very near future—next week, this week—to the severest of all tests, and it is not a light thing for men remaining in their trenches under, first a deluge of shells, then drenched with poisonous invisible gas, and, at last, having to stand up against great bodies of Germans skilfully led and armed with bombs, flame-throwers, and all the rest of it, with machine guns sweeping every bit of the open ground—it is not, I say, a light thing, as we all know, for them to face that readily. How can they do it: how can we expect them to do it, if they are led to think that the people at home may in some eventuality let them down; that the people at home may give away everything, or much, of that for which they are fighting, and for which they are undergoing these extreme sacrifices? It is the duty of this House, and of all persons of responsibility in it, to enable our Armies, so far as they can, to feel that this country and this House will never let them down.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI listened to the first part of the speech of my right hon. Friend with pleasure and with complete agreement. In what he said about the aims with which we are carrying on this War I entirely agree. He expressed them in the way in which I have always thought they can be most simply expressed, by saying that, as far as this country is concerned, what we are fighting for is peace now and security for peace in the time to come. That is our main object. I agree also with what he said about a League of Nations. I agree, at all events, to this extent, that if, as the result of this horrible War, we do not arrive at some means which by a universal concensus of sensible people throughout the world will prevent a repetition of it, then indeed this War will have been waged in vain. So far I am in agreement with my right hon. Friend. But as regards the rest of his speech I am at a loss to account for its delivery, and I can only explain it on the principle of the French proverb with which he is not doubt familiar, "Quis'excuse, s'accuse "—who excuses himself accuses himself.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWOh, yes. I can see no other object in it. He has dealt with the criticism of the way in which this Government is working. I am not going to deal now with that in detail. The restrictions which the necessities of the case have imposed upon our food supply have made it necessary at home to see the same dish over and over again in different forms. If my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to give constantly réchauffês of his speech, I hope he will not expect me to give réchauffês of my replies. Look for a moment at the matter. If my right hon. Friend were comparing the existing state of things with some ideal state, I can understand his criticism, but he has had experience, and what I would like him to compare is the way in which things are being done now with the way in which they were done in the Government of which he and I were members. That comparison I would never be afraid to face.
He gave, as an illustration of the absurdity of our system, that the Cabinet has to deal with dog biscuits and horse-racing. My right hon. Friend has had some experience, and he knows perfectly well that the question whether dogs are to be destroyed 635 or kept alive, and whether or not there is to be horse-racing are questions which influence the House of Commons, and is it possible that they should be decided without those who are responsible in this House—first of all the Prime Minister, and secondly, under present circumstances, myself—is it possible that they can be discussed without our having some voice in the decision? What happens? When these questions, and other similar questions, have been remitted to a Committee of the Departments concerned, they report to the War Cabinet, and make recommendations. We consider them and give our decision; and I know no better means than that by which questions of that kind can be settled. Now I come to the main point of my right hon. Friend's speech. What happened last Thursday? His speech is rather interesting. He tells us, in the first place, that at a meeting upstairs—I presume he refers to the meeting of the Unionist War Committee— they passed a resolution to support the Government before they knew what was the Government case. I was not present, but I received a report of it, and unless my right hon. Friend has means of obtaining information different from mine, his report is quite inaccurate. It is perfectly true, and I should be sorry to think it were otherwise, that members of that party start with the desire to support the Government, but, as I was told, the meeting ended leaving every member free to take whatever course he thought proper.
As regards last Thursday, my right hon. Friend referred again to the five just men who cannot be found in the House of Commons. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) is not present, for I should like to make a claim upon his gratitude which I am sure he would have been the first to recognise. In an interruption, I gave him an opportunity for the display of that particular kind of forensic eloquence in which he does not often indulge, but of which, when he pleases, he is a past master, but for which in his heart nobody in the House has a greater contempt than my right hon. Friend. I do not pretend that my interruption was intended to help him, but in the circumstances, in the very trying circumstances, for right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench, I did not grudge him the advantage my interruption gave him. As regards this question, what happened was that the letter 636 to which my right hon. Friend referred appeared in the papers. We had the same day to take a decision as to what we were to do about it. I was personally rather interested in it, and this applies to everyone engaged in politics. I am not thin-skinned about criticism, and I do not object to being accused constantly of incompetence and of weakness, and I have got used to being told that I am staying in office against my convictions for the sake of office. But it was a new experience for me to be told that I was a liar, and I did not like it, neither did the Prime Minister. We therefore proposed that the subject should be left to be decided by what we thought was an impartial Court, and we made that proposal, and we are asked why we altered the decision in twenty-four hours. The Member for East Fife altered it. We made the proposal, and now my right hon. Friend tells us that they never intended a Vote of Censure. If that were so, then not only I, but the Whole House, was under a misapprehension at the time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife has had more Parliamentary experience than anybody, except perhaps, the Foreign Secretary, but I have had a great deal too, and when I was in Opposition, over and over again I asked that time should be given for the discussion of something I wished to discuss. It was always refused unless it was accepted as a Vote of Censure. It was in that sense and that sense only that I agreed to the discussion, and it was in that sense that every Member of the House understood it. What happened? It is quite true, if it worth arguing, that we preferred another tribunal to a Select Committee of this House. I am quite unrepentant as to what I said as to the suitableness of that tribunal for this purpose. During the time that I have been Leader of the House I have carried out my functions in my own way. I have acted on the assumption that what I thought reasonable was reasonable, and that if I said to the House what I thought, they would think it reasonable also. I have got into trouble that way often, but I am certain I would have got into greater difficulties if I had tried any other method.
Does anyone pretend that, as a tribunal to try the conduct of Ministers, a Select Committee of the House is an impartial body. The thing is utterly absurd. We have had experience. Election petitions used to be decided by Committees. 637 of this class. These Committees were supposed to act as judges. It was found that they acted from party motives, and the system was abolished. We had an experience more recently, and I am sure the Prime Minister would not in the least object to my referring to it. A Select Committee was set up to try the conduct of Ministers absolutely impartially. Yet by the strangest of coincidences, on every Division of any importance every Conservative voted in one way, and every Liberal voted in another. That is what happens. What we offered was a tribunal which we thought would look at the facts fairly, and at nothing else; and when my right hon. Friend refused to accept that offer and, instead, took the course of asking, as I thought, for a Vote of Censure, the position was changed, and we asked the House of Commons to decide themselves. They did decide, and we are quite pleased with the decision.
My right hon. Friend made some remarks which are very much to the point about criticisms at a time like this. Nobody, I think, is a better judge of the difficulties of that than I am. For ten months I was Leader of an Opposition during the War, and it was a very poor position under those circumstances. I had a good many advantages over my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), and my right hon. Friend will not object to my saying it. None of my colleagues were quite so critical, and were willing to give me greater freedom than he is prepared to give in the matter of criticism. It is very difficult, and we do not in the least contend that there ought not to be criticism. What I have said before I say now. In each particular case the man who makes the criticism, and the House itself, must judge as to what is the nature of that criticism. If the criticism is of such a kind as to imply that it is a Government which ought not to have the confidence of the House of Commons, and that it is not fit to carry on its functions, then instead of thinking the position is made better because speeches of that kind are made and are not followed by a Division, I say at once that it would be infinitely better that we should have a Division, and know where we are, and realise that we have a real opposition and are prepared to face it. In such circumstances the House knows where it is. Under conditions such as have existed since the War there is a great deal of latitude in the minds of Members. At 638 ordinary tunes, when there is a party Government, the leaders of that party have one advantage which is of the greatest value They can always count on the support of their followers when they most need it, and that is when they are partly wrong or altogether wrong. In the present circumstances, they cannot do that. There is an amount of freedom which does not exist at ordinary times.
Therefore I say, from the point of view of the Government, there is a real advantage sometimes in having parties clearly defined, and knowing exactly where we are. But I do not wish it. It would be a very great misfortune if there should be any appearance of any weakening in the main motive which I am sure actuates my right hon. Friend as much as it actuates me, and I welcome his assurance, not that he is as earnest in the War as we are—I do not doubt that—but I welcome his speech to-day if it means that he does not intend, and that his party do not intend, to lend themselves to criticism which is not helpful and which is mainly intended to discredit and weaken a Government which has as great a responsibility as any Government has ever had in this country. Very few things can be more foolish than for a member of a Government to say anything in praise, or approaching praise, of the head of that Government. At a time like this, anyone in a responsible position who was influenced in his support of opposition to a, Government by feelings of friendship would be guilty of something like a crime towards his country. We have got to try to have the Government which is best calculated to secure the result that we want—an honourable peace in this conflict. I say to the House as a whole, and I can say it when one of his own supporters could not, that as long as this House believes that the present Prime Minister is the man best fitted for his post, it is the duty of everyone to give him support, and not to go about seeking grounds for finding fault.
Mr. DENNISSI rise merely for the purpose of corroborating the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to what occurred at the War Unionist Committee. It was absolutely correct in every particular. No resolution of any kind was-passed to back up the present Government right or wrong, black or white, but every Member was left to vote perfectly freely according to his own conscience after hearing the Prime Minister's statement.
§ Sir TUDOR WALTERSI cannot help entering an emphatic protest against what I consider to be the very unfair treatment to which General Maurice has been subjected by the Censor I do not propose to enter into the general controversy, because that would be out of place at the present moment. Neither do I propose to refer, except in passing, to the action of the military authorities in punishing General Maurice for a breach of discipline. It is quite within their rights, upon evidence, to inflict upon a general whatever punishment they consider right and proper for violations of military discipline. They can degrade him from his rank, they can reduce his pay, they can ruin his career, and they are entitled to do it if they think fit; but I venture to say that neither the military authority, nor any other Department of the Government, is ) entitled to rob General Maurice of his personal honour or to refuse him the opportunity of establishing his bona fides and his credibility in the statements that he has made in the letters that he has written. This letter that appeared in the "Daily Chronicle" yesterday was submitted to the Censor and, in answer to a question, the Home Secretary stated portions of it were deleted. In answer to a supplementary question, he stated that it was because of some reference to secret documents which might create a false impression. That letter was a very moderate and modest and patriotic letter. It did not renew the controversy in any shape or form. It simply attempted to answer what the General thought were unfair reflections upon himself and statements that undermined his reliability, his credibility, and the bona fides of his previous letter. On one point only, the most important point, the Censor deleted material statements that General Maurice made. I do not want to take any advantage of the privileges of this House by quoting the words that were deleted by the Censor—that would be improper and in bad taste—but on one particular point the Prime Minister laid great stress and certainly implied that General Maurice had not the information that would entitle him to express opinions; that, in fact, he was not present on occasions when he alleged that he was present, and that, therefore, he could have nothing but indirect or second hand knowledge of the statements that he made—indeed, that the phrasing of his original letter 640 was deceptive and intended to convey an impression that he was present at a certain place when, in fact, he was not present. The words that were deleted from General Maurice's letter made it perfectly plain that he was in direct access to all the information which enabled him to express a true and correct opinion upon what took place. Those words were deleted. It is grotesquely unfair to deprive a man of an opportunity of justifying the statements he has made.
As to the answer made by the Home Secretary, although I have very great respect for the Home Secretary, I am more afraid of him than I am of any other man who sits on the Front Bench, because his fine Parliamentary manner, his amiability and affability usually succeed in completely out-manœuvring and putting an extinguisher on his opponent. His reply, which suggested that in some way these secret documents, if referred to, would make a false impression on the public mind, was a polite Parliamentary evasion of the real point at issue. It would have been perfectly simple, even if there were any words in the part deleted, if the Censor had desired to treat General Maurice fairly, to have made a slight alteration in the words that would not have given away any secrets, and which would have established the bona fides, credibility, and reliability of General Maurice's statement. I venture to protest against the action of the Censor in this respect. I protest not only because I think that General Maurice has been treated unfairly. I have not the honour of General Maurice's personal acquaintance, and I know nothing about the controversy except what I have read in the papers. But I feel he has been treated badly, and that it is a profound mistake, to put it no higher, to create in the minds of our great and distinguished generals the idea that they are likely to be treated unfairly, that they are not to have treatment which is honourable and fair and which gives them a chance to establish any case they think it is reasonable and proper and in accordance with Army discipline to make. The action of the Censor goes beyond the question of General Maurice. It means that we are. in danger of a great Government Department exercising its mere discretion, not on points of public interest, but its mere discretion from its own standpoint, in regard to public statements that may be 641 made or written by distinguished people who may happen to differ from themselves. It is quite right that the Censor should delete from a statement anything which might give information to the enemy, and if any opinions any of us choose to express are opinions that would hearten or encourage the enemy and diminish the confidence of our own people in the prosecution of the War, it is quite right that they should be deleted. The Censor goes beyond that. The time may come when anybody who ventures to disagree with the opinions of the Leader of the House—there may be misguided, foolish mortals who may sometimes disagree with him—will not be allowed to express those opinions in a newspaper. That position is an intolerable one, and we ought not to be so limited, circumscribed, and tyrannised over by Government Departments.
This unfortunate general was tried last week in his absence. A brilliant counsel held the brief for the prosecution; no one was retained for the defence, and he was condemned unheard. I do not want to reopen that controversy again, but surely, having condemned him unheard, having ruined his career, having driven him from the Army, you might at least allow him to make a plain, patriotic, honest statement to rehabilitate himself and to re-establish his credibility in the mind of 642 the public at large. It is kicking a man when he is down, and I dislike that. Let us at least practice fair play, even with those who are opposed to us. Even a British general is entitled to be treated with some consideration and respect. I desire to enter my emphatic protest against this proceeding, and I hope the Government will restrain the enthusiastic loyalty of their Censorship Department, and will try to play the game with generals and with their political opponents.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, the 28th May."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
§ The remaining Orders were road, and postponed.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes before Six o'clock till Tuesday, the 28th May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.