THE GOVERNMENT, THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, AND THE PRESS.
NATE cannot congratulate the Government or the House of Commons in regard to their attitude and behaviour toward the Press. They are far too apt to bark a great deal and bite not at all, and that, whatever be the merits of any particular case, is always a weak and foolish thing to do. Last March, for example, the Times published the contents of a confidential paper in the shape of the draft Report of the Committee on the King's Civil List. The action of the Times was at 'once made the subject of very angry comment in the House of Commons, and a great many severe thi gs were said about its wickedness in making such a publication. We do not saY that those who so gravely admonished the Times were necessarily wrong, for the true facts of the case have never been before the public ; but in any event it was utterly absurd to make so great a business about the publication, and then do nothing, for the admonishment of the Lobby correspondent of the Times by the Speaker was, in fact, nothing. The latest case, that of the Daily Mail, affords an even stronger example of the utter futility of the way in which the Government and the House of Commons deal with the Press. The Daily Mail is taken to task for publishing the contents of two confidential documents,— one of them some tithe ago, and the other recently, but in the recent case, be it noted, a day after portions of it had been published in another newspaper. These documents, we are told, were circulated to none but Cabinet Ministers and War Office officials of the highest rank, and therefore it is suggested that they could only have been obtained by corrupt means, and the Daily Mail is inferentially accused of having used such corrupt means to obtain the contents of the papers in question. Now if this allegation is true, it is clear that no punishment could be too heavy for the editor and proprietors. If those responsible for the Daily Mail really obtained the information by corruptly tempting poor men to commit a gross breach of their honour and duty, then assuredly the penalties should be as exemplary as the crime was odious. But what happens in fact ? Instead of the Daily Mail being proceeded against with the utmost sternness, the War Office refuses to supply the Daily Mail with a certain official paper,—i.e., the casualty lists issued to the rest of the Press, but which the Daily Mail can and does obtain in other ways. Could anything be more ridiculous ? A man is gravely accused of murder, and is punished by being told that in future he will not be allowed to use the main gate into Hyde Park.
• But to make things even more farcical, the House of Commons next plunges into a privilege incident. In the course of its quarrel with the Secretary of State for War, the Daily Mail, whether with or without justification we shall • make no attempt to decide, used very strong language. But when people use offensive language there are only two ways of dealing with them. You must either, if it is in your power to do so, chastise them very thoroughly, or else ignore them altogether. But the House of Commons, as guardian of the honour of its Members, thinks differently. It solemnly passes a Resolution con- demning the Daily Mail for having committed a breach of privilege owing to its language, but absolutely refuses to act upon its condemnation. In fact, it acts as elderly spinsters may sometimes be seen to act when noisy little boys call them names in the street. They turn round and say, "You very rude little boy," and then walk on with great dignity. Honestly, we cannot say that such a method of dealing with the Press is either wise or, indeed, anything but supremely foolish. We do not, of course, wish to assert that either the Times or the Daily Mail or the daily papers accused on Tuesday of improperly and pre- maturely publishing the Report of the Pensions Committee acted rightly in publishing information which ought not to have been divulged to them by their correspondents. But that is after all a matter of taste and judgment rather than of morals. The essential question is not whether an editor should have refused certain items of news, but whether the newspapers in question used corrupt induce- ments to obtain news. If they did, then something far stronger than admonishments by the Speaker or a withdrawal of the casualty lists should be the punishment inflicted.
We do not, however, wish to dwell any longer upon the merits of the particular case in dispute, which, after all, is, except for the principle involved, a very trumpery affair, though personally we believe the emphatic denial of the Daily Mail that they ever employed corrupt means to obtain the War Office information which they are censured for publishing, just as we believed the denial of the Times in the Civil List case that they used corrupt methods. We desire instead to lay down what appear to us to be the principles that ought to govern the relations of the Govern- ment and the Press. In the first place, we most emphati- cally cally agree with the Times that the Government must be the guardian of its own secrets. It is idle to say that this is impossible, for it is done every day in commercial offices, in the offices of solicitors, and in barristers' chambers. Secrets which are of the greatest possible public interest, which involve vast sums of money, and, again, secrets on which the daily Press would greatly like to satisfy the curiosity of their readers, are habitually blown and yet kept in the professions and places we have named. Why, then, cannot secrets which are blown to Cabinet Ministers and great officials only be kept in the same way ? The answer, of course, is that they can and ought to be kept, and would be kept if the Cabinet Ministers and chief officials used proper care and prudence in their business. But though Government Departments ought to keep their own secrets, we also hold that there should be the sternest penal legislation directed against any newspapers which may attempt to use corrupt or other illegal means to induce persons who know official secrets to betray them. If the agent of a newspaper were to attempt to undermine the probity and honour of an official by the offer of bribes, we would gladly see not merely the agent, but his employers, sent to penal servitude. We take it that the Official Secrets Act already provides for such cases. If not, it should at once be strengthened. But it will be said that the trouble comes, not from the newspapers who go to the officials, but from the officials who go to the newspapers and sell or give them information. In such cases it seems to us that we can only go back to our first principle. The Govern- ment must take the trouble to employ men whom they can trust with secrets. You might no doubt enact that it should be an offence to buy a secret which the editor knew to be an official secret, but practically such an enactment would have very little effect. In many cases no editor could tell whether a piece of news was or was not an official secret. But though you could not bind editors legally not to buy official secrets, no doubt an honourable editor would not buy a secret if and when he knew the man disclosing it was committing a grave breach of trust. Unfortunately, however, official secrets are very seldom disclosed in that way. They come at third or fourth hand, and not in the shape of an actual official confiden- tial document. In truth, the best security against injury being done by the disclosure of official secrets is the fact that no editor would ever publish an official secret which he knew would injure the interests of the country. Even if he were without any sense of patriotism—and whatever the public may think, editors as a rule are not any less patriotic than Ministers—he would blow that a paper which injured the nation by disclosing an official secret would deal a deathblow at its own position. We come, then, back to our original point. The Government must keep their own secrets, and must take the responsibility of dismissing careless and " leaky " officials, even of the highest position, and not, instead of performing that simple duty, abuse the Press. At the same time, they must not hesitate, as we have said, to enforce the law if ever they find a newspaper trying to get officials to betray their trust. Unfortunately, this is a course of action which Governments never seem to have the strength to pursue. They are voluble in promiscuous denunciations of the Press, but they never have the courage to take action.
We have one more word to say on the whole question. Ministers would be very much better advised if they had much less to do with the Press altogether. It is good neither for the Press nor the Government that their relations should be too intimate. It makes each side tend to be disloyal to their trust. Ministers tend to neglect the work of governing wisely and well for that of gaining personal applause. Newspapers are apt to forget that their first duty is to supply free and independent views and criticisms unbiassed by personal considerations. It is, unfortunately, notorious that Ministers often assiduously court the Press, and that the Press are any- thing but coy to those advances. If Ministers would be less afraid of the Press, less anxious for Press notice, and more independent, we should have a healthier tone as regards Press matters. At present Ministers either indulge in violent lovers' quarrels with the Press, or else arc far too familiar. We want independence from the Press, not transports of over-confidence tempered by angry friction. Our last word on the whole subject shall be of a practical kind. It would be far better if there were less conventional secrecy in Government offices. Too many documents are labelled "secret and confidential," and "most secret," and the like, when they in reality contain no secrets. This constant crying of " Wolf " produces the worst possible results, for familiarity with this bogus secrecy naturally breeds contempt. The secrets that are best kept are the real secrets,—those of which the people who know them clearly understand the importance. Such real secrets should only be told to persons who can be trusted absolutely. If ever, then they get out, the offence should be brought home to those who betrayed the secret rather than to the conduit- pipe through which the indiscretion was poured.
Previous page
