LORD ELLENBOROUGHrose to call attention to the fact that, on the 3rd of March last, Lord Selborne whilst First Lord of the Admiralty expressed the following opinion as regards the dissemination of news in war time—
The position of the law as it at present stands is one with which no body of public men of this country can be content;and to ask the present First Lord of the Admiralty if during the recess it is intended to publish a Blue-book containing documents which would have the effect of preparing the public mind for legislation in 1906; and whether some of his naval advisers are not of opinion that such laws, if well considered and drawn up so as not to interfere with full freedom of criticism, would do more to strengthen our maritime position than the addition of some millions to the Naval Estimates.The noble Lord said: My Lords, After the discussion that has just taken place I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to hear that my speech will not take more than four minutes. After what Lord Selborne had said in this House on the 3rd of March when replying to a Question that I had asked him, I had fully expected the Admiralty to take some steps towards enabling the public to study the questions connected with dissemination of news in war time. Though I have no doubt that the Admiralty and the Naval Intelligence Department have given much thought to 747 this subject, still it is not in their power to solve these problems unaided. If that had been the case I should have refrained from asking this Question. But the Admiralty have only power to make regulations, and this is a case in which the laws of the country require to be changed. This cannot be effected without the assistance of the Press and the public.
Nearly five months have now elapsed since Lord Selborne spoke. Whatever may have been done by the Admiralty, in the interval, there is as yet no outward and visible sign of progress. It is, of course, too late to expect that anything can be done this session, but I hope that in February the matter will be found ripe for legislation. Whatever Government may be in office, some measure should be brought forward in 1906, as this ought not to be looked upon as a Party question, or as one that can be indefinitely postponed. It is the unanimous opinion of all the naval officers whom I have consulted that if we found ourselves at war before such a Bill is passed we should be placed at a serious disadvantage; a disadvantage whose equivalent it would be difficult to estimate in millions of money. If the dealer at bridge had to place his cards on the table as well as dummy's, the odds in his favour would be greatly diminished.
The idea of the necessity of secrecy is not a new one in naval strategy. In October,1745, Admiral Vernon, the hero of Portobello, wrote to the Admiralty—
When an enemy doss not know where you are he is under apprehension of you everywhere.Many of our leading journals are quite prepared to support a reasonable Bill. As for those who may oppose it for the sake of what they may consider to be their pecuniary interests, I can only tell them that if they are successful the profits arising from that success will be very small, as it is perfectly certain that some measure effecting telegrams and war news would be passed before war had lasted a month, though possibly too late to save us from the loss of the initiative and a consequential disaster. I doubt if any form of censorship previous to publication would be of any use. In 748 the first place, we have too many newspapers; and, in the second place, nearly all the soldiers, and sailors fit to act as censors would be required for active service, To prevent misapprehension I shall conclude by saying that I have no wish to see any interference with full freedom of criticism of the conduct of individuals, or of past events, provided that by so doing no information is given that might be of use to an enemy. The new legislation should lie dormant until we are in imminent danger of war. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW):My Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty has desired me to express his regret that he is prevented from being in his place to reply to the Question of the noble Lord. The noble Lord has alluded to the danger arising from the indiscriminate publication of news in time of crisis or actual hostilities. The view expressed by Lord Selborne in the speech quoted by my noble friend has the full adherence of His Majesty's Government. It is perfectly true that the present position of affairs in regard to the publication of information which ought in the interests of the country to be kept secret is certainly not satisfactory, but, as I am sure the noble Lord must realise, it is not an easy matter to deal with by legislation. There is no reason at all to suppose that the Press in this country is unpatriotic or unworthy of confidence. But, in spite of an honest desire on the part of editors to avoid embarrassing the public interests, under present conditions the evil to which the noble Lord called attention is very often the result of a keen competition for news and some uncertainty as to the measure of secrecy which is necessary in regard to particular items of service intelligence. The First Lord hopes to have an early opportunity of making some private representations in responsible quarters with a view to arriving at an understanding by which the difficulties which surround the problem may be removed. If it is found possible to attain the desired end in this way, the need for the legislation suggested by the noble Lord will be obviated. If, however, such methods should unfortunately 749 fail, it may well be that legislation in the last resort will in the interests of the country become inevitable.