SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE. (Hansard, 17 July 1924)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, the noble Marquess is, I think, under a misapprehension if he thinks that there is any inconsistency between the report in The Times and the OFFICIAL REPORT. Both made it quite clear. What I said was that it was purely on the grounds of general policy, and not on strategical grounds, that I raised any objection to the Singapore base. Indeed, I laid that down in express terms in the earlier part of my speech. There is really no inconsistency between the version in The Times and the version in the OFFICIAL, REPORT, but I prefer the official version, which is a little more explicit.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW
By leave of the House I should like, if I may, to say one word. It would be this: 713 that in the minds of many of us there is a good deal of difference between the two forms of words under consideration, and I think I shall carry the House with me when I say that both your Lordships and public opinion outside, and particulary the opinion of the great Service affected-will learn with a good deal of relief——

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
I hope the noble Marquess will allow me to call his attention to the fact that he is entirely out of order, because there is no Motion on the Paper.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW
I asked leave of the House and if I am allowed I will conclude—will notice with some relief that the noble and learned Viscount has been pleased to tell us that he prefers the official version, and that, indeed, the OFFICIAL REPORT conveys his views upon the matter entirely.

§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON
May I add a word, because my noble friend who sits beside me is, I think, right in saying that this is a matter of importance? There is a great difference between the two forms of words and I was not in the least surprised to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that the terms in the OFFICIAL REPORT are those which he accepts. When he says he prefers the "official version" I think he is using a wrong expression, because clearly the OFFICIAL REPORT, taken at that Table, gives the words he used, unless he has altered them himself, which is inconceivable. Therefore we assume that he did use the words as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. From that it emerges that the Report in The Times, whether it does or does not express his general sentiments, is incorrect in its terms.
For my own part I am very glad to hear that that is the case, because when I saw The Times—I was abroad and I could not see the OFFICIAL, REPORT—and read the words attributed to the noble 714 and learned Viscount, "but Singapore went far beyond that, and added a new weapon which it was not good that the Navy should have," they appeared to me to imply a slur upon the Navy, and a likelihood as to the manner in which the Navy would act, which was entirely undeserved, and which, if it came from anybody, ought not to come from a Minister in the position of the noble and learned Viscount. I am therefore glad that attention has been called to the matter, because we now find that the words actually used were those appearing in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that those appearing in The Times and Morning Post were a misinterpretation of what he said, and are a gloss upon them for which the newspaper alone is responsible.