§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Mr. PRINGLEThis afternoon I put a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the recent sale and purchase of a group of London newspapers, and in that question I addressed a number of inquiries to the Government which naturally arise out of such a sale under present conditions. The reply to the question was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was informed that there was to be no change in the political policy of the papers affected. With that point I will deal later, but as to the two questions which arose out of the original question the right hon Gentleman replied that the Government intended to set up no inquiry into the present tendency to the monopolistic control of the Press, and he said that if an application were made for paper on behalf of new newspapers whose object was to promote the former policy of the papers recently purchased, that such an application would be dealt with on its merits by the Paper Commission. These subsidiary questions 79 indicate generally the questions of public policy which I think require the attention of the House and of the country.
Recently, as everybody is aware, there has been a growth of group interests in newspapers, until now it may be said that with few notable exceptions nearly all the newspapers in this country with large circulations are in the hands of a few groups, and that these groups with a single exception are in intimate association with the Government, if not really subservient to it. The recent change affects a group of newspapers which certainly were formerly independent. It is somewhat doubtful whether the former independence of this group will be continued under the new system. It certainly means that there is an increase in the aggregation of newspapers, for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel), who I am delighted to see here, is associated with the new management and control of the group formerly known as the "Lloyd's group," and we know that he already holds a similar position in regard to the "Pall Mall Gazette," and that he has long been associated in the same capacity with that well-known democratic organ, "Reynolds's Newspaper." My right hon. Friend, I think, deserves to be congratulated upon his recent successes in journalism. When the War broke out his sole ewe lamb was "Reynolds's Newspaper."
§ Sir H. DALZIEL indicated dissent.
Mr. PR INGLEWell, in the political sphere. If my right hon. Friend had other honours to his credit, they were unknown to the general public. During the War he has increased his flock to the extent that I have mentioned, and I believe to a somewhat greater extent. All this shows that the present transaction has increased the number of newspapers under a single control, undoubtedly aggravating the monopolist tendencies to which I have referred, and which, I think, require public attention and deserve public inquiry. As I pointed out in my question, the Government were greatly moved by a recent movement in the banking world towards amalgamation, and, as a result of the general unrest and suspicion which arose out of these amalgamations, the Government set up a Committee to inquire into them and into their effects upon the money market and upon our financial system 80 generally. It is equally important to the public who control the sources of information to the country. My right hon. Friend will have an opportunity of dealing with my points. I am merely arguing by analogy. It may not be a formidable argument. My right hon. Friend is at the head, in a managing capacity, of all the newspapers which I have mentioned, and the fact that he is now managing director or political director of the group recently acquired undoubtedly increases his powers as a newspaper potentate. I have shown what promoted the inquiry into the bank amalgamations. That related to finance. Why should it not equally apply to the sources of information, which are of vital interest to any democratic community; because, if the springs of public information come into the hands of a few groups or of one group, you really have a travesty of genuine democratic conditions? I therefore urge that the Government ought to set up some inquiry into these tendencies, so that if there be any mischievous influences at work those influences may in the public interest be checked.
There is another reason why the recent transaction deserves attention, and it arises out of the peculiar conditions relating to the paper market at the present time. There have been sales and changes of individual newspapers in the past—indeed, the "Pall Mall Gazette," to which I have referred, has passed through the hands, I think, of more than half a dozen proprietors—but it was possible on former occasions, when a paper like the "Pall Mall Gazette" was transferred for the purpose of changing its policy, for those who were interested in the former policy of the paper to start a new paper advocating the old policy, and to transfer the whole of the old staff to it. There was then a free market in paper. Now there is no free market in paper. Paper now can only be had from the Government. Consequently it is entirely at the discretion of the Government whether any new organisation can get the raw material necessary for the purpose of advocating the views which were formerly the policy of the "Daily Chronicle" and the allied newspapers. We are told that the Paper Controller would consider any such application on its merits. That is a somewhat evasive and ambiguous answer, because, if it be the case, as I propose to show, that this group is now really under Government control, it will surely affect the Paper Controller's view of the merits of the new application.
§ Mr. P. A. HARRISThe Government will not permit new papers to be published or obtain paper.
§ Mr. PRINGLEYes, new papers may come into existence under licence. I think new papers have come into existence during the War, but under licence from the Government. Indeed, the Government have published certain new newspapers. We want to know whether under the circumstances which I have put forward the Government would assent to such an application. It is not a matter which should be allowed to rest in the vague form in which the answer has been given. I have said that under the new system the "Daily Chronicle" and the other papers are really under the control of the Government, and, if that be so, it strengthens the case, especially in relation to the last proposition with which I was dealing.
It is an open secret now that for a long time negotiations have been going on for the purchase of these papers. I quite agree that in every case the negotiations have not been carried on on behalf of the Government. There have been various groups anxious to obtain control of these newspapers. I have not been associated with any of them. Undoubtedly, however, the main efforts from beginning to end have been made on behalf of the present Government. They began early in 1917. The matter, I believe, was mentioned by the Prime Minister himself to the late managing director of the "Daily Chronicle" in the early part of 1917. In those days the names of the purchasers held out for these papers were Lord Leverhulme and Lord Colwyn, both the recipients of honours from the present Government. When the first negotiations reached an advanced stage it was said that the main purchaser was to be Lord Leverhulme. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Patronage Secretary (Captain Guest) was associated with these negotiations. If I happen to go wrong upon any points of detail, I have no doubt that he will be able to correct me. I think he will agree with me that at that time he had negotiations with the late managing director of the "Daily Chronicle," in which he held himself out as acting for Lord Leverhulme. The matter advanced so far that an accountant made an inquiry into the figures relating to the businesses, and reported to my hon. and gallant Friend 82 as to the price—something in the region of £500,000. After this report was received it turned out that Lord Leverhulme was not the real person involved, but that behind the rays of sunlight soap there was the interesting and significant figure of Lord Beaverbrook. That was at a time when Lord Beaverbrook was Minister of Information. It is a matter which, I think, concerns this House that the Minister of Information, a member of the Government and a responsible Minister, should have been negotiating for the purchase of a newspaper at a time when he was advertising himself as having divested himself of all control in another newspaper which he had previously owned. That negotiation broke down on two grounds; first, the price; and, secondly, the personality of Lord Beaverbrook. Lord Beaverbrook objected to the price that the proprietors of the "Daily Chronicle" desired. He said that if the price was to be £900,000 it was "not his baby any more." He said it was therefore a matter for the party funds. On the other hand, he admitted that if the deal had gone through he would have been prepared to enter into a bargain to support the present Prime Minister for a period of five years, a bargain, by the way, which did not apply to the "Daily Express."
7.0 P.M.
The negotiations broke down partly on price and partly on the personality of Lord Beaverbrook. The late proprietor of the "Daily Chronicle" declined to sell his newspaper to a Tory partisan. So an attempt was made by the Patronage Secretary to assure him that Lord Beaverbrook was not a Tory at all. That negotiation came to an end in the month of May. But, as showing that the Prime Minister was taking an interest in the matter, and that the Government were concerned in the business, I may add that the Prime Minister saw the late managing director by appointment in regard to the negotiations on the 21st of March—the date on which the German offensive started. Apparently there were other individuals and other groups endeavouring to negotiate on the basis of the price of £900,000, which was placed on the property by the late proprietor.
This was the situation until the month of July last, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) appeared for the first time on the scene with the powerful aid of the Prime Minister. The negotiations were kept 83 secret, and no indication was given to anybody that anything had taken place until the 3rd of October, when the late editor of the "Daily Chronicle" was informed by his proprietor that the property had changed hands, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs was to enter upon his duties as political director of the paper on the following evening. In order to account for the secrecy with which this transaction was carried out—a secrecy which was undoubtedly somewhat strange in view of the late editor's long connection with the paper—the proprietor informed him that he had been bound to secrecy, and that at an interview he had had with the Prime Minister and with my hon. and gallant Friend the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury he was pledged to make no disclosure of what was going on, in particular to the editor, because the editor had recently criticised the Government and had published an article in which he said that the Prime Minister "had a small mind." This, it seems to me, disclosed the real object of the transfer. It meant that this paper, which, although it had been a supporter of the past and present Government in relation to the prosecution of the War, had nevertheless criticised it on a number of questions of domestic policy in which it believed that the Government had erred. For example, the "Daily Chronicle" criticised the Government because it had failed in relation to the question of man-power, and because it believed it had failed in relation to Ireland. And, I think, on certain other questions it had exposed either the failure or the blunders of the Government, and had made some reference to a noted scandal now under investigation—apparently this independent action on the part of this newspaper was to come to an end, and, instead of continuing as it had been—
Sir H. DALZIELDoes the hon. Gentleman suggest that anyone connected with these negotiations had anything to do with cellulose? If he has no evidence, he ought not to make such an unfair suggestion.
Mr. PR INGLEI made no suggestion; I alluded to certain activities on the part of the "Daily Chronicle," and I am very sorry my right hon. Friend should have regarded my remarks as conveying any such suggestion. I am endeavouring to 84 deal with this question entirely apart from personalities, and I hope to keep my remarks on that level until the end. What I want to point out is that these papers are now in fact "tied" papers; there can be no doubt about that. My right hon. Friend is well known as a supporter of the present Coalition, and his close association with and constant devotion to the Prime Minister are equally honourable to them both. We can be assured therefore that my right hon. Friend will not be at all deficient in his advocacy of the Government or in his enthusiasm for the Prime Minister personally.
But three of the gentlemen who are now known to be associated with the undertaking in some capacity, either financial or in respect of management, are men who are really officials of the Government. We understand that Sir A. Weir is interested to a large extent in the direction of contracts by the War Office. Sir Howard Spicer is associated with the Government in relation to paper, and Sir Charles Sykes is a buyer of wool for the Government. So that, as far as the names of those associated with the new undertaking have been divulged, they are one and all closely associated with the present Government—that is, from the point of view of policy. And if it be true that it is really a Government paper, is it not contrary not only to the policy which the Government officially put before the country, but to the basis of the appeals which they are making to the public in regard to investments in War Loan at the present time? We know that the Government has a Treasury Committee, which is able to place a ban upon new issues of capital. That is another matter in which they have a hold upon any new company that seeks to promote a newspaper. While they are able to prevent any new issue of capital, they themselves apparently encourage the investment of capital in this way. They are calling upon the general public to invest all their savings in War Bonds. Yet these members of the Government are apparently investing their savings in newspapers. Both in a sense are investments in paper, but one is to win the War, and the other to win the General Election—one is to feed the guns, the other to falsify the ballot box. It is, under these conditions, desirable that we in this House should look upon negotiations of this kind in a very questioning spirit. We should see, first of all, that 85 the Government dissociates itself from all speculation in newspapers at the present time, and this is really a speculation, although it did not so appeal to Lord Beaverbrook, who rather thought it was a proper object for the application of party funds.
But, apart from the conduct of the Government and the question of Government control of the paper, we should have also, I think, an assurance from the Government that they are considering this question of the capitalistic control of the Press of this country. I do not expect that the Government themselves at the present time will be inclined to give that assurance, but I hold that it is the duty of the House of Commons to press for it. It should be the duty of the House of Commons, as far as it possibly can, to preserve and maintain an independent Press in this country; and when we view the existing situation and still more recent tendencies, I think the House must be impressed with the probability of an early extinction altogether of the independent Press in this country.
This is not, an isolated transaction. I have got evidence that persons acting for the Government have been recently endeavouring to acquire independent newspapers in other parts of the country. On no fewer than three occasions a Scottish evening paper which has a long record for independence in politics has been approached on behalf of the Government with a view to its purchase; and this propaganda of newspaper purchase is going on all over the country in a secret and clandestine way. The result is that these papers may have their character fundamentally altered without their readers knowing of any change taking place in the ownership. That is part of the danger of the whole thing. A change of policy and of character should not be allowed to be carried out in this subtle way, so as to entirely deceive the readers of the newspapers into believing that the papers are still maintaining the old policy and the old ideas.
I think it is undoubtedly the duty of the House of Commons to press for some form of reply, as clean public opinion is of as much importance as the finances of the county. And in addition to that we should have an assurance from His Majesty's Government that so long as the restrictions upon paper 86 continue, no invidious and no partisan distinctions whatever should be drawn in any applications for paper on behalf of those who wish to start newspapers, or in the distribution of the available supplies to any newspapers at present in existence. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will see fit to reconsider its decision in these matters. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been misinformed on this question as to the policy of the paper. I have brought forward evidence to indicate that this paper is no longer exercising the independence, or is no longer intended to exercise the independence which it displayed under the old direction, and that one of the objects of the purchase is to put an end to the exercise of that independence. I have also, I think, been able to point out the dangers of these great newspaper aggregations in relation to the Government, and it is mainly on account of these considerations that I ask the Government to reconsider its decision and, if possible, to set up at an early date a Committee of Inquiry such as I have asked for.
Sir H. DALZIELIt is with the greatest reluctance that I take any part whatever in this Debate. I have had the honour of sitting continuously for twenty-seven years in this House, and I have never before been called upon to take any part in a debate on a personal matter. I would gladly remain silent even now, but I think my silence would be misunderstood. I have remained silent up to the present time in regard to the matter to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, although I have had every provocation to say a very great deal. There has been base agitation, provoked and encouraged by competitors employing every weapon, some of them very foul, to try and injure the property with which I have recently become associated. I do not say that this is part of that campaign organised by a committee of three liberal editors, but I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that he has been in communication with Mr. Donald.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI admitted that.
Sir H. DALZIELMr. Donald has been saying this morning that the great world debate is going to take place to-night on his resignation. I cannot but regret that at a time like this, when great world events-are taking place, and men are suffering and dying close to this place, that my hon. 87 and learned Friend could not find any other subject to occupy the attention of the House of Commons, save what I maintain is purely a personal and domestic matter. What have I to answer in reply to my hon. and learned Friend? He has made a series of insinuations and suggestions.
§ Mr. PRINGLENo!
Sir H. DALZIELHe has repeated a foul suggestion of the "Westminster Gazette," that Mr. Grant Morden had some association with me.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think it is unfair to me to say that I repeated any foul suggestion. When my right hon. Friend pointed out that there was any possibility of my words bearing that construction I at once indicated to him that nothing was further from my mind.
Sir H. DALZIELOf course I accept the hon. and learned Member's statement, but I think the House will agree that suggestions of that kind, that because the "Daily Chronicle" was attacking some particular interest that I came forward and tried to muzzle its independence—I say that to say that to a pressman is to charge him with being guilty of the most heinous crime he could commit. Thank God my public record has been clean in regard to anything of that kind, and it is not fair to a competitor; and I am taking an opinion whether it is not libellous for papers to insinuate and suggest that there was some kind of connection between the "Daily Chronicle's" conduct and its attack against certain interests, and that that must be the explanation of the carrying through of the transaction. It is untrue as well as other suggestions that have been made. My hon. and learned Friend complained that there had been amalgamation. I know nothing of an amalgamation. I have taken no part in any amalgamation. At the present moment I have no intention of doing so. My hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that I was associated with other great newspapers. There is nothing of the kind, nor is there likely to be. I control my papers; it is not a matter for the House of Commons. I control my papers, and nobody on earth controls me or is going to control me. And really, is it a matter for the House of Commons that they should sit down seriously and discuss my 88 business operations? This is a business transaction, and why should not I be allowed to carry through a business transaction without bothering the House of Commons about it? It was a good business transaction, and I do not mind saying that I could have made a very substantial profit during the last few days if I had been disposed to get rid of my property. My hon. Friend made a very great deal—this, of course, is where the mischief comes in, because it will be reported by all my competitors, and not in every case, I am afraid, will my reply be made public. I will tell the House in a very few sentences what happened. I do not want to take up the time of the House with regard to it. I do not want to discuss it here, and I refused to do so outside. The facts are that one of the proprietors of the "Daily Chronicle," through failing health, decided at the beginning of this year that he would have to release himself from the vast responsibility of carrying on that large undertaking Three different groups of Liberals from time to time were in negotiation with a view to purchasing that property. There was what is known—it has been referred to by my hon. Friend, but I know nothing of that group—Lord Leverhulme's name was mentioned. It may be that he was interested.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWhat about Lord Beaverbrook?
Sir H. DALZIELSurely the hon. and learned Member does not make it a complaint against me that I prevented Lord Beaverbrook from getting it. I know nothing about the suggestion of Lord Beaverbrook being connected with it, and I am not going to accept the responsibility. But I understand—my hon. and learned Friend has told us—that there were active negotiations, and that Lord Beaverbrook's name was mentioned. These negotiations failed. Then another group came into existence associated with another eminent peer, more intimately associated with my hon. and learned Friend than possibly Lord Beaverbrook.
Sir H. DALZIELIn connection with that group the late editor was particularly active; there was another group represented by an hon. Friend—I saw him in the smoking room a few minutes ago, but I do not see him here now.
Sir H. DALZIELThe hon. Member for the Shipley Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Oswald Partington) was introduced to Mr. Lloyd as a possible purchaser. Nothing came of either of these negotiations. I appeared on the scene only after all these groups had failed. They had failed, and there was no business likely to be done. At the moment, I heard and I confirmed it, that there was a group of men, who were not avowed Liberals, who had placed over £1,000,000 at the credit of a Conservative editor in London to purchase the "Daily Chronicle." I appeared by a curious coincidence—or the other competitors rather—on the very day that I went in July to settle the terms that were to be carried out on the 1st of October. On that very day, this non-Liberal group appeared on the scene, and while assurances would have been given doubtless as to the future policy of the paper, the fact remained that in my opinion the only way to control the paper was to have men with you to some extent in sympathy and, as Mr. Lloyd himself expressed a desire and said it would be to his satisfaction and peace of mind if I were in control and accepted the situation.
The House must remember that I have been doing business for Mr. Lloyd for thirty years. I spend large sums of money with him, and we are in daily, almost hourly, communication. He knows me, and I know him, and therefore it was a consideration to Mr. Lloyd that the paper should pass into the hands of someone in whom he would have confidence. I came in July, and it was settled in July, and that is where my hon. Friend really does me an injustice. The article to which he referred about the small-minded Prime Minister appeared before I took possession. All this took place in July—it was about a week before. The suggestion was that because the "Daily Chronicle" appeared to criticise the Prime Minister therefore I rushed in—months after the whole deal was done—and bought it. There has been a suggestion about this change of policy. It is entirely incorrect. The statement was made outside, and was made for the purpose of injuring my property to some extent, but I will let the hon. Member into a secret. The announcement that I had taken over the "Daily Chronicle" sent it up very much indeed in circulation, on no day by less than 60,000 copies. I would say to the hon. and learned Member that the public must not be treated as children. The hon. and 90 learned Member complains that these papers have large circulations; that is a matter for the public and for the enterprise of the people who are running them. Why should these people criticise me—with small circulations, evening newspapers, whilst I have multiplied my circulation six or ten times since I took over my evening paper—now that they are feeling the draught, if I may say so; why should they complain because these circulations are gone? The British public has a right to buy the papers it chooses, and who is the man who is going to say that I am subservient to anybody? Have I over been subservient to any statesman in this House? I have criticised the late Government; I have criticised in my present papers the present Government, and I intend to do so. I am absolutely independent. I support them when I think they are right, and I blame them when I think they are wrong. Why should the hon. and learned Member dare to suggest that any paper with which I am connected is of a servile character? I claim that I have a right to deal with my own property as I please. The British public has the right to buy the papers it pleases. If it happens to be that their choice falls upon my newspapers, that is their good judgment and not my fault. One word more. It has been complained—I have seen it in many newspapers—that this operation was kept secret. Would any business man blame me for carrying through an operation of a very considerable extent when I knew that there were three other groups ready to make another offer, and when I knew that the late editor was himself bringing men to the office and really succeeded to a large extent in putting up the necessary money? He made one condition, I understand, which did not operate for success, and that was that he was to have complete and absolute control—a most desirable thing, but I succeeded in getting it and he did not. The arrangement which I made, as far back as July, contained one clause, and it was this, that if the matter of the negotiation was made public the vendor had the right to declare the deal off. That was a necessary consideration for the property. The whole of the papers had been discussing it. All over the country it had been said these negotiations were taking place, and, quite rightly, Mr. Lloyd, than whom there is no man who occupies a higher position in British commerce to-day, said, "If I am going to 91 carry through the operation now I cannot have my business discussed all over the country, because it will hurt the newspaper and create unrest among my staff." I knew perfectly well that if it was known outside that I was negotiating those who had made the conditions before when the money was available for it would very soon have waived those conditions, and probably been powerful competitors against me. Not only that, but it would have raised the price against me—a very sore point. Therefore it was essential that the negotiations should be kept secret.
I am told I treated the late editor unfairly. These attacks have been organised outside. Men are going from newspaper to newspaper inventing all sorts of things and making all sorts of base insinuations. They have been organised, I am sorry to say, by men whose previous careers I have honoured, and who, in my opinion, have always acted with fairness. The feeling which has created that mortification is that they failed and I succeeded. I did not treat the late editor unfairly. It was not my business to go and tell an opponent what I was doing. That was a matter entirely for the discretion of the proprietor. But the late editor has not suffered so very much. He has taken £70,000 of my money for an interest which probably cost him a nominal amount. So therefore he has not done so badly. He has two years' salary in addition. The late editor is a friend of mine and I hope will long continue to be a friend, though I wish he would go away for a holiday at present. My task would be very much easier than it is. This I contend, is a domestic matter. Those who failed in carrying out the operation felt very keenly about it. My competitors also, for some reason, feel very much interested. Honest men may be exploited quite unintentionally in the game that has been played against me. The suggestion that I am in some way going to go against the principles and the policy which I have stood for all my life is a base, unworthy, and cowardly suggestion. My record is here in the House and before my Constituency. I have been elected by them seven times with a majority increased every time, and the last time without any opposition whatever. My public life is an open book to be examined in the library of this House. I have supported democratic opinion through all these years. I never gave one 92 vote in the House against a Labour or democratic proposal or against Ireland. I have given many votes to all the Home Rule Bills which were ever introduced, and the combination of men who have been utilised by commercial people to injure me and my property is unfair. They have no right to bring their grievances to the House of Commons. Let us fight the battle outside and I will accept the public's judgment.
§ Mr. HUGHESWe have had two speeches to-night, one from an hon. and learned Gentleman, a lawyer, and the other from a right hon. Baronet, a newspaper proprietor. I belong to neither of these parties. I pose as being simply an honest man, and I say what I think. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this Debate, there is something not only wicked but rather new about papers or groups of papers being bought. The hon. and learned Gentleman shows surprise at the idea. Of course there is nothing whatever new in buying newspapers in that sense. I do not know very much about the proprietorial side of journalism. Fleet Street has been said to be a land flowing with ink and money. I have had a great deal more to do with the ink than the money. There is nothing new in papers being bought. I noticed the other day an advertisement in the "Daily News" in which it bragged, "This is the paper which cannot be bought!" I do not know whether it meant that it could not be bought by readers or could not be bought in a proprietorial sense. But it is not very long since the "Daily News" was bought. It was bought in the middle of a war too, and it was bought in order to alter its policy in regard to that war—the Boer War. I was then, and still am, if I remember the times clearly enough, a pro-Boer, unashamed and unrepentant. But there was that paper bought at that time in order to alter its views on that particular war, so it need not give itself any airs in regard to that. That cannot be said about the "Daily Chronicle." It may have been bought while a war is lasting, but it has not been bought in order to alter its policy in regard to that war. So far as I have been able to follow it, it is still, as every sane man, I hope, in this country is, of opinion that we must follow that war out to a successful military result, inflicting an obvious defeat on the enemy before we really make terms.
93 I am not much mixed up with these proprietorial concerns in journalism, but I think there have been other attempts to get hold of the "Chronicle." I have heard the name, I think, of Lord Cowdray mentioned in connection with a previous attempt, and a right hon. Gentleman who was once Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also other great men. That attempt failed. I wonder if we should have had such an outburst of virtuous indignation if that attempt had succeeded. It just happened that one side was up against the other and one brought it off. As to the "Chronicle" as a paper, I say nothing. I speak quite independently. I have written for it. It has published some of my articles, but, looking back, I regret to say I think it has had the bad taste and the bad sense to reject more than it has accepted. I am not in their pay at all. I hold no brief for them. But when it is said that it has been bought to back up the present Prime Minister, and also to prevent hostile criticism against the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith), for whom I have, and shall always continue to have, the greatest regard and the highest admiration, I cannot help remembering that the late editor of the "Daily Chronicle," Mr. Robert Donald, has bragged again and again and again in public that he and his paper 94 had more to do with leading to the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman than had anyone else in the country. He took that to his credit, if it be to his credit. It is arrant hypocrisy for anyone to brag that he has brought a man down and then, when circumstances change, to pretend that he has been sacrificed because of his loyalty to that man. The less we hear about that the better. As for newspapers and their proprietors and the Government being asked to intervene, I do not want the Government to intervene in newspaper affairs at all. If they have done it at all in the way of censorship it may have been desirable or even necessary, though I have always disliked it. But if it comes to the Government of the day being asked to intervene and say that this man shall not buy a paper or the other man shall, much as I desire to back the present Government so long as it goes right, I for one shall vote against any such suggestion. They must have nothing to do with the Press beyond that interference which is necessary, in the sense of censorship, to winning the War. Beyond that they should not go.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes before Eight o'clock.