§ LORD ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the report in the Observer of Sunday, October 10, of a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, at York, in which he described certain acts of the Censorship as an example of "mischievous stupidity," is an accurate one; and, if so, whether the speech represents the views of His Majesty's Government.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE)My Lords, this is a subject which I have previously discussed in this House, and I have to say at once that I hold exactly the same opinion in office as I held out of office. When I first drew public attention to this matter it 1037 was in the form of a letter to The Times, and I protested against the tendency, which appeared to me to be increasing, of giving an undue prominence to our successes in this war over our defeats. When I wrote that letter I believed there was only one authority in this country which dealt with the subject—that is the Press Bureau, presided over by Sir Edward Cook and Sir Frank Swettenham. But Sir Edward Cook explained to me, in correspondence, that there really were two quite distinct authorities—one a military authority, which was exclusively responsible for the military news published, and the other the Press Bureau, which dealt with the general superintendence of the Press—and that the Press Bureau, as such, over which he presided had no responsibility whatever for the military news published. They simply published without editing the news sent to them for publication by the military authority. I took an early opportunity in this House of stating that that was the case, and of correcting my criticism accordingly. I hoped and believed that that was generally understood; but as it appears not to be I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of repeating it.
In my speech at York the other day the act of censorship which I criticised was the excision from the report of The Times Correspondent of a statement that the Germans had fought well. For that excision the Press Bureau, over which Sir Edward Cook and Sir Frank Swettenham preside, had no responsibility any more than the noble Lord who sits on that Bench. The excision was done by a military authority. Who he was I do not know, nor do I know for certain whether he was in this country or in France, though I believe and suspect he was in France. I withdraw nothing from the opinion I expressed as to his exercise of discretion. The noble Lord asks whether I spoke in the name of His Majesty's Government. I did not consult my colleagues, but I should be very surprised to learn that any of them disagree with me.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSI am sorry that the noble Earl has taken my Question as expressing censure upon him. My object was the reverse. I put down the Question in the hope that the noble Earl would be able to say that he had converted his twenty-one colleagues to his own view.