HL Deb 13 July 1906 vol 160 cc1174-81
LORD ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, I rise to call attention to recent conferences of the Committee of Imperial Defence with a sub-committee of the Newspaper Society on the question of dissemination of news in time of war or emergency, and to the proceedings of a meeting of that society, presided over by Mr. Walter, which took place on June 21st, at which there was a unanimous approval of the principle that some legislation was necessary; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have fully considered the responsibility that they will incur if they prolong the period during which this country must run unnecessary risks and whether they will endeavour to lessen those risks by at once introducing a Bill dealing with the question.

The patriotic endeavours of Mr. Walter and other prominent members of the Newspaper Society in trying to get the whole of the journalism of this country into line on the question of the dissemination of news in time of war or emergency deserve the gratitude of the community. On June 21st, at the Royal United Service Institution, the Newspaper Society authorised their sub-committee to consider any Bill that might be drafted on the subject, as they naturally wished to see it, before pledging themselves to support it. I am desirous of knowing if the Government will meet their views by producing such a Bill. Since I first raised the question in this House and lectured on it at the Royal United Service Institution they have had ample time to prepare one. I should not have called your attention to this subject last year if I had not believed that I was expressing the views of the whole of the British Navy and also the opinions of the more thoughtful portion of our Army. Nor should I have persevered had it not been for the encouragement I have received from my brother officers.

The necessity of secrecy of movement in time of war has been frequently referred to in the Press since March, 1905, and not one single man, whether soldier, sailor or civilian, has come forward with his voice or with his pen to defend our present position. The Government have an immense majority in another place. I, for one, should be sorry to see that majority dispersed before it had passed an important Act of Parliament which could be approved of by all parties in the State, one which would benefit the whole country. I say that such an Act would benefit the whole country because, although during the first fortnight of a war newspaper profits might perhaps be somewhat greater than if such laws did not exist, the increased security that such a measure would give to all the invested capital in the United Kingdom would be shared by the capital invested in newspapers. I say that there would only be about a fortnight of such increased profits, because the moment fighting with a first class Power began there would be a cry for a most stringent Bill of this description from Land's End to John O'Groat's. Such a Bill, however, might then be too late. A hideous disaster might already have occurred. Russia was never on even terms with Japan after the attack on Port Arthur, nor France with Germany after the battle of Worth.

The greater portion of the population of this country have no conception of the strain which even a slight interruption of their commerce would bring upon them. Yet every child who has enjoyed a game of hide-and-seek has grasped the principle of the necessity of secrecy in time of war. Whether its little playfellow is behind the rhododendrons, or whether it is creeping through the laurel bushes, are at the time matters of as great importance to the child as the question of the where abouts of an enemy is to an admiral or general in later life. Therefore, I do not despair of getting The people of this country to understand that legislation is necessary if we would avoid defeat and disaster. The question may be put concisely as follows. Do you prefer always to have the latest news and to hear of defeat, or to wait for forty-eight hours with a greater chance of hearing of victory?

If the Government does not think that it can pass a Bill this year, why not publish the draft of a Bill now, so that it can be discussed on the platform and in the Press during the autumn and winter months? That would clear the way for it next year. If the Government has the courage to grasp the nettle and bring in a Bill approved of by the Committee of Imperial Defence, I think it will find that the Bill will not in either House meet with any opposition worthy of the name except on questions of detail—questions for Committee of the Whole House, not for Second Reading. The Press as a whole would, I believe, support such a Bill. Of course, there would be a small minority against it, but there always is a minority against every Bill. The Bill should only deal with news that might be of use to an enemy find should not interfere with criticism. With freedom of criticism the Press remains free. The liberties of this country are safe from all internal dangers, but they may have to be defended from external attacks. The Japanese newspapers never divulged news, but their criticisms of unsuccessful officers were far more severe than any of those that I read in our own Press during the South African war.

The judgments of our Press may sometimes be hard on individuals. But as a whole their comments have had the effect of increasing the efficiency of the Army and Navy, and both services are indebted to the newspapers for many useful reforms. Many of the articles that appear in our daily and weekly journals are written by men who thoroughly understand what they are writing about, and their productions have in consequence an educational value both to the Services and the public. A regular censorship on the South African pattern would be impossible. There are 2,461 newspapers in the United Kingdom. I doubt if we have 2,000 men competent to act as censors. If we were at war with a first-class Power, all those who were fit to undertake such duties would be far better employed in the field or at sea, unless they had lost either their arms or their legs. None but cripples could be spared, and there would be enough for duty in London only. Each newspaper should be its own censor and should publish nothing in contravention of the law under pain of prosecution. I do not think that courts-martial or special courts would be necessary. In England and Scotland, at least, such cases could safely be loft to juries. In drawing up a Bill the question of carrier pigeons and other methods of transmitting news should be considered.

In dealing with an internal question such as education, if the House of Commons thinks that its predecessor has made a mistake, it can repeal an Act of Parliament, and shape further legislation as it may choose. But in an external matter Parliament is powerless. No Resolution of both Houses can repeal a naval or military disaster. You cannot repeal a Sedan or a Tsusima. With the law in its present state, if we find ourselves plunged into war we shall be courting defeat and shall most thoroughly deserve our punishment. The nation has no right to expose its soldiers and its sailors to the additional risks involved in having their movements and proceedings reported to an enemy for the benefit of the few newspapers that may oppose the measure.

In a recent leading article the Globe rightly said that— In naval matters it may be of the last importance to keep the whereabouts of a naval base shrouded in the deepest and most profound mystery. and that— If the Bill is to be a reality the penalties for its infringement must be a reality also. We constantly hear of combining efficiency and economy. A Bill dealing with this question would not only greatly increase our power of defence, but also our power of attack, and it would have the additional merit of not costing the country a single sixpence. It would, I think, do more to strengthen our position than an addition of £5,000,000 to the naval and military Estimates. Its passing would tend to preserve peace, for it would show other nations that we were more fully prepared for war. It would not annoy anyone in times of quiet, for it would lie dormant until called into action by an Order in Council, and the inconvenience it would cause in time of war would be far more willingly submitted to than disaster. If such a disaster were serious —recollect that this country can be starved out in a month—there would be no question of a big loaf or a little loaf; there would be no loaf at all.

Last year we celebrated the centenary of Trafalgar. Let us remember that it was also the centenary of Ulm and Austerlitz. A few weeks before his death Nelson wrote to the Governor of Gibraltar, asking him not to allow the local gazette to publish news of the movements of his ships. At about the same time Napoleon wrote to Fouché that he was not to permit the papers to mention the existence of the French Army— De faire défense de parler de Parméc francaise, pas plus que si elle n'existait pas. The results wore, the capitulation of Mack at Ulm, the capture of Vienna, and the victory of Austerlitz. The greatest compliment ever paid to the Duke of Wellington was when Marshal Ney said i of him— Il ne montre jamais ses troupes. To return to more modern times, Togo and . Oyama and the Japanese nation appear to have held very much the same views as the great warriors I have mentioned. If the Government were to bring forward a Bill now, there would be time to discuss it in another place during the autumn session while this House is dealing with the important Bills that will shortly be brought before it. This is not a Party question, and it ought never to be allowed to become one. If the Government introduce a measure of this description, I hope it will receive the support of those who sit on the Front Opposition Benches of both Houses.

The Government cannot guarantee peace, yet it leaves us partially disarmed for a twelve-month. Who can say that next year will be a more suitable time to introduce such a Bill? It may be blocked by a Home Rule Bill and massacred with other innocents at the end of July. Why put off till to-morrow what we ought to do to-day? The First Lord of the Admiralty and the Under Secretary of State for War may say that they are quite ready to accept the responsibility of delay. Well, if they do so, I think it my duty to tell them that they are gambling, staking the safety and independence of the nation on the chances of peace being maintained. If peace is undisturbed the Government will not come under the ban of public opinion, but if we are unfortunate enough to be engaged in a war with a first-class Power, they will have to face a hurricane of popular indignation, in common with all those who have endeavoured to postpone the introduction or passing of such a Bill. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very important question, and one which, he rightly says, is in no sense a Party one; but I think he will also admit that it is a somewhat delicate question, requiring very careful consideration, and making it very desirable that the Press itself should . combine with the Government in regard to any measure that may be introduced. The noble Lord quoted the case of Japan, but I am afraid that in no circumstances would it be possible to introduce such strict secrecy in the West as it was possible to maintain in Eastern waters.

This Question has been under the careful consideration of the Government and of the Defence Committee in cooperation with the Press. In February last a small sub-committee of the Newspaper Society, consisting of Mr. Clifford, Sir Douglas Straight, Sir F. C. Gould, and Mr. Soames, entered into conference with certain members of the Defence Committee with regard to this subject, and they came to something in the shape of an agreement on the basis of which a Bill might probably be drafted. The principal points were these. First, that the publication of all news with regard to naval and military matters or the movements of ships and troops at time when the Government considered it essential in the interests of the nation to put the Act in operation should be prohibited; but that to this there should be this exception, that there should be no restriction as regards the publication of news supplied from the Admiralty or the War Office, or sent under censorship from the seat of war; and, further, that there should be no restriction upon comment or criticism based upon information furnished as stated or upon facts which were common knowledge. The small committee thought they had not sufficient authority, and the question was referred to a Conference of the Newspaper Society which met on June 21st. At that Conference the following Resolutions were carried— That this meeting cordially approves the action which has been taken by the Newspaper Society in appointing a sub-committee to confer with the Committee of Imperial Defence in regard to the principles that should govern any legislation dealing with the dissemination of news in time of war and when war is imminent, and authorises the sub-committee of the Newspaper Society to add to its members and to continue to act and to consider any Bill that may be drafted on the subject; and— That the conclusions of the sub-committee be submitted to a future Conference before the Bill is introduced into Parliament. Those conferences and that consideration are going on and will go on. The subject is not being disregarded by His Majesty's Government. They are anxious to deal with it in a way that will be both good for the country and satisfactory to the Press, and I may add that only a fortnight ago the Prime Minister in another place said The subject would be dealt with early next session.

EARL CAWDOR

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are indebted to the noble Lord for raising this important question, which he has brought up on several previous occasions. The question was before the Admiralty last year, and I am glad to hear that some progress has been made in the direction in which we hope this discussion may eventually lead. I agree that the question is a delicate one, and requires careful handling; and we are most anxious that any action taken in this House or in another place should be taken with the concurrence of the Press. I do not mean a necessarily unanimous Press. As long as the majority of the Press are on our side, and there is a general friendly feeling towards a Bill of this kind, I hope His Majesty's Government will strike while the iron is hot. It would be a mistake if the matter were allowed to drop. It ought to be followed up closely till some settlement is arrived at. I think the Press seem to have taken a very reasonable view in the report of the committee which the noble Lord has mentioned. It appears to me, as far as I was able to follow the noble Lord, that what they are asking for is a very reasonable arrangement indeed. I can assure my noble friend that we who sit on this side of the House will do whatever we can to assist legislation of this kind. I again urge the Government not to let the matter drop, but to follow up the progress already made with the assent of the Press, and I hope that before long a satisfactory issue will be reached.

House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.