§ LORD ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to an article by the Military Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, published on March 27, in which he wrote as follows:—
The German strategists are bold to rashness; they know that our best troops, and, what is even more important, our best Officers, are abroad, so that they probably reckon on easy victory if once they can put ashore sonic half a dozen Army Corps. What steps are incumbent on our War Office in the teeth of this menace, remote though it be?
The best precaution we can take is to confide the command of the troops told off for the defence of England to competent Generals, with competent Staff officers, and, at whatever cost to the Army in the Field, some such leaders should he reserved for this duty. To tell off large bodies of troops to fight a defensive campaign under incapable chiefs is a sheer waste of men;
and whether these statements have been approved by the Censor.
LORD SANDHURSTMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Curzon would have replied to this Question on behalf of the Home Office, but, unhappily, he cannot be present, and I have been deputed to answer it. The reply is as follows. The Home Secretary has seen the article referred to and is informed that it passed the Press Bureau. The passing of an article does not, of course, indicate approval. The Censor has only to consider whether the article contravenes the principles by which his action is guided—namely, whether it is likely to hinder us in the prosecution of the war or, for other reasons, to be of value to the enemy, and 587 if it is not the Censor passes it. In the instance mentioned in the Question nothing in the article appeared to him to contravene these principles, and he passed it.