THE PRESS AND THE GOVERNMENT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 199, 11 May 1918, Page 2

THE PRESS AND THE GOVERNMENT

•— gK SIDELIGHTS ON THE ROBERTSON INCIDENT NORTHCLIFFB AND LLOYD GEORGE (liy tho London Correspondent of the Melbourne "Argus."J ,„. ~ London, March 1. fho cable- messages will have given some information respecting the moiuenmis dubate. which look place in tho House of Commons on Februarv 19, but I dpuol whether jour readers could have tally understood tho gravity nf the political situation which they arose. We teemed within an ace of the Government lulling to meces. The crisis sprang out of the newly-constituted Versailles Council, that organisation was formed to securo promptness and unitv in military control To that end Mr. Lloyd George T'il" 1 to limit the powers of hit- William Kobertson, Chief of tho Imperial General Stiff, powers inherited liom his predecessor, Lord Kitchener, to whom they were granted by a special Order-jn-Council issued in January, 1316. In other words, it was proposed to transfer some of Sir William's executive antnority to «ie Versailles Council, and make that authority tho one important centre of decision. All tho Allied Govermnents and their generals were agreeable to the scope and work of the council j and while at Versailles Sir William Jtobertsou offered no objection to it. Sir Douglas Hais was Teady to work the now scheme* When, however, Sir William Kobertson returned to London, and was offered the post of British representative on the council, he objected to any delegation of power over tho British Army. He therefore refused that offer i and he also declined to remain at his old post of Chief of tho Staff with diminished power. Sir William suggested a compromise, namely, the appointment of a general who 6hould act as his deputy, or representative, at Versailles. The Government declined that plan, on tho ground that such a man would hold an inferior position compared with General Foch, who, being close to Paris, can act in the dual capacity of Chief of Stall and French military adviser oa the council.

few days there was a deadlock. Mr. Lloyd George's critics, led by Colonal Eepington and the "Morning Post," roundly abused Jiim for seeking to reduce tho authority of our greatest genera]. Other writers and llio ehib gossips alleged that Mr. Lloyd Georga had long wanted, for some unexplained reason, to get rid of General Robertson; and not all the stories of the differences of these two men have yet been dispelled. Nevertheless, tho Prime Minister paid a warm tribute to Sir William in tho great debate on illio 19th inst. 'He might well do so, for General Robertson, moved, perhaps, by complaints that it would not bo patriotic fo go sulking into Ilia tent, agreed to take a post of lower degree, namely, command of the Eastern (Counties) district.

General Sir Henry Wilson, who had only been a few weeks on the Versailles Council, has succeeded Sir William Robertson as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, but with less authority than his predecessor, and Gouoral Rnwlinson has taken a seat at. the council, in the place of Sir Henry Wilson. Notwithstanding tho witlo popularity of General Robertson, his acknowledged military superiority, and tho public appreciation of his gireat work in this war, many people do not approve tho step ho has taken. Tho unusual powers which ho inherited from Lord Kitchener raised tho military above tho civil authority; moreover, the position offered fo Sir William on the Versailles Council would, in his case, have had almost undisputed weight with tho Government at Home. Whatever disajipointuiont is felt over his attitude towards the new powers of the council is mitigated by his magnanimous action in taking a homo command, which will, at any rate, give him a seat in tho War Office, and keep him in very close relations with tho Secretary of State.

Heated Public Discussions. The public discussions around tho above subject evolved no little heat. Tho newspapers revealed an acute controversy, ono group, known as the Northclitl'o Press, supporting Mr. Lloyd George, another group—"Morning Post," Colonel Repiugton, and the military party—stoutly defending Sir AVilliam Robertson. Tlio Press campaign was a prominent subject in tlio debate. Ono speaker accused tho Prime Minister of inspiring the Northcliffs Press, culling forth Mr. Lloyd George's response: ''That is an absolute and unmitigated falsehood." Even Lord Hugh Cecil declared that the suspicion of such an inspiration existed, whereupon Mr. Lloyd George remarked, "Monstrous!". After politely accepting the contradiction, Lord Hugh pointed out that thero were coincidences between the Primo Minister's action and the articles in tho Press, which showed that either ho was guided by the Press or thero was some communication between them. Lord Hugh apparently referred to tho "AVeekly Dispatoli," tho "Daily Mail," aud tho "Evoning News.''

This subject of Press influence in the national life has long been a, notable feature in current politics. The country has never known a Prime Minister so aeccssiblo to newspaper men as Mr. Lloyd George. He has a largo body ut able private secretaries, and any person who hiis real business iu Downing Street is never turned away. The newer members of the Government— I do not refer to Lord Curzon, Mr. Balfour (who says lip does not read newspapers), or even to Mr. Bouar Law—observe a very differ* out treatment of newspaper men from that of their predecessors. And look at the number of newspaper men, editors, managers, and writers, who havo been taken by the Government to assist iu some form of administrative war work. Editors or proprietors, like Lord Northdirfe, Mr. Robert Donald, Sir . George Riddell, Lord Itotlierinere, Lord Beaverbrook. Caiouel Buclian, Mr. C. P. Scott, and tho managers of throe or four news associations, are doubtless useful ior propaganda, and in some cases for more important work; and these arrangements bring, tho,Press and the Government much nearer than at any previous period of our history. With such an intimacy it is nut surprising that some journals arc accused of actiug as the Prime Minister's fuglemen. In the debate above referred to, Air. Asquith, alluding to Sir John Jcllicoe and Sir William Robertson, talked of tho "virnlont and unscrupulous I'ross campaign which had teen directed against them, followed by 'onloiced retirements.'" But "it was left to Mr. A. Chamberlain to speak even more plainly about tho "deplorable and cowardly" Press attacks upon public men, apparently the outcome of collusion between certain Ministers and certain newspapers. 'It wad remembered that immediately after Lord iNorUiciille's newspapers had attacked Sir William Rul.crl.-on, and ,Sir AVilliam bad given up bis post, it seemed almost cynical Unit Lord Northclill'c should bo promoted to the position' of Director of Propaganda, and Lord Rothermero (Lord NorthclilTc's brother) should hoid a still moro important post in the Government. Mr. Chamberlain called attention to these things, and pointedly begged that the Government should get rid of those two noblemen. "Tho Government," he said, "have surrounded themselves quite unnecessarily with an atmosphere ol suspicion and distrust, because they have become intimately associated with great newspaper proprietors. They will never stand clear in tho estimation of the public, and will never have the authority they ought to have, until they have made tilings quite clear, open, and plain to all tho world, and sever their connection wilh the newspapers." Other speaker;; dwelt on tiio same point. Sir Henry Verney told tho House that everybody at the British front believed that I lie dismissal of Sir AVilliam Robertson was "started by an intrigue, and helped by a discreditable aud dangerous aliianco with tbo Northcliffo Press." Major Guiunoss bore similar testimony as to tiio feciing of tho Army. Before the .lobato commenced there were eager anticipations as to the course, which Mr. Asquith might take. Some persons thought that, notwithstanding his usual reluctance to embarrass the i Government, lio might iuovo a voto .of

censure. Hut Mr. Lloyd George's story of tliu Versailles arrangements showed thai there was no ground fur any serious iittiick upon Iho Government Host speakers were agreed that if Mr. Llojil George had made such explanations when lie was questioned liy .Mr. Asquilh, in the preceding week, jio crisis need have arisen. The chief interest of Urn .Rebate, in its later stages, turned upon the Government',) relations, with the Press.

'Press Group Influence-. Upon that subject Mr. .1. ]i. Spender has written a notable article. Mr: Spender has been :! lending journalist, over thirty yei-iifi and liis political writings in the "Westminster Gazette" have InainlaJnOd that paper in Iho !irst rank of sane Liberalism. Jlo points oul that; Ihe deep resentment expressed in all parts of tbc House, and directed against the newspapers, was highly wgniticiluf of widespread disapproval of present newspaper methods. Mr. Spender maiilliiins thai a newspaper editor is not free to attack, or complain of a Government that employs him-. Ho also considers that the group system ifc so bad, both fur working journalists; and for (ho public, that he would prevent any man owning or Controlling more than one newspaper. Mr. Spender also considers it to be no consolation to conscientious newspaper writers that a few magnates should be able to forge an instrument of terror, at which Ministers lirmble ;,nd Governments fall. Mr. Spender likewise strongly protests against the Government and Iho Prune Minister increasing and magnifying ille power of the Press "bosses." Upon all this it may bo remarked that Mr. Lloyd George's method*; of publicity keep tho country better informed than ever before, and are quite in accordance with Iho democratic, spirit of the age; also that it is quite, natural *hat. newspaper men should respond to the Prime Minister's courtesies by saying the best they can for his policy, especially if titu-liu-'hononrs are also showered upon them with tho profusion we have recently seen. From the days of Dd.me onwards Ministers have given their fit-bits to specially favoured editors, and have thereby earned the support of the recipients. To-day's complaint is that newspapers and newspaper writers are being mobilised on a large scale for iho specific purpose of supporting the Government. The tone of tho recent debate indicated strong resentment of the House of Commons towards such a practice. Tho subject has burst into ilnino moro than once in the House of Commons since, the debate above referred to.