Evening Post SATURDAY, AUGUST 8, 1925. MINISTERS AND THE PRESS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 34, 8 August 1925, Page 6

Evening Post SATURDAY, AUGUST 8, 1925. MINISTERS AND THE PRESS

A question which is of special interest to politicians and journalists, but in Great Britain has for some time been a matter of grave public concern, has been handled by Mr. Baldwin in an embarrassed, piecemeal, and dilatory fashion, but has at last been settled, and • rightly settled. Should a Cabinet Minister be allowed during his term of office to write for the Press? The question is not a new one, but it has recently entered a new phase with which it is quite clear that not any doubt as to the principles involved but a personal delicacy made Mr. Baldwin reluctant to deal. When Mr. Bonar Law was Prime Minister he was called upon to give a ruling on the subject, and his decision was that "matters of current public policy" should not be discussed by Ministers in articles contributed to the Press. In its application to paid journalism, which is the crucial point, the soundness of this ruling is beyond dispute. But trouble has nevertheless been raised both for the present Government and its immediate predecessor by the Press work of Ministers. Mr. Snowden's practice of his profession as a journalist after he had become a member of the Mac Donald Government was severely criticised. There seems indeed to be no reason why the journalist should be exempted from the rule which prevents barristers, solicitors, 1 doctors, and other professional men from practising while the service of the Crown is supposed to monopolise their attention.

But the activities of a distinguished amateur journaliatj of a man whose distinction in that capacity is mainly due to the high position which he holds and to the still higher position which he once held' as a Cabinet Minister, have provided a much more serious embarrassment for Mr. Baldwin. A novelist of the day is credited with the remark that "the way to become famous in journalism is to become, notorious outside it." As Mr. F. E. Smith, and partly in connection with his mission to the United States, the present Secretary of State for India wrote a number of articles some of which have since been published in book form, but it cannot be said of any of them that either as literature or as journalism they display .any remarkable merit. They rather illustrate the commonplace that the most brilliant of debaters and orators may make a poor showing when he commits himself to paper. But, a3 a former Lord Chancellor and now the Secretary of State for India, ' Lord Birkenhead is able to satisfy in the best sense the novelist's requirements for success in journalism. Divorce reform, the Government of India, the detection and punishment of crime, and a series! of judicial biographies have been the recent subjects of his active pen during the last few months. ■

It is not only members of the Opposition who have objected to this procedure and to the manner in which Mr. Baldwin has fenced with repeated questions on the subject in the House of Commons. The matter stands on a higher plane than that of party, and concerns the efficiency, the harmony, and the dignity of all Governments alike. Yet even after it had been much canvassed in the Press and he had taken time to look into the point Mr. Baldwin was able to say no more about it in the House on the 10th June than this :—

The Government hava carefully considered this question and have decided; to reaffirm the principle that Ministers of the Crown while holding office should; refrain from writing- Nicies for publication in any way connected with matters of current public policy.

By a singular coincidence one of Lord Birkenhead's 1 articles had appeared in an evening paper on that very day, and so the further question followed without notice: —

Is the- right hon. gentleman aware that there is a bill outside carrying the device "Murder. By the Earl of Birkenhend," and mny I ask what action he proposes to take in the matter 1

According to "The Times" report " Mr. Baldwin's reply was not audible in the Press Gallery." The reason may have been that his feelings about his very inconvenient colleague were 100 deep for words. When another member asked, "Will the Prime Minister road .Uiu-.tU'Uulos..utt uiui'dci by..

Lord Birkenhead?" Mr. Baldwin's reply was both audible and discreet : "I have a good many things to read." There have indeed been so many things over Lord Birkenhead's signature in the Press lately that even the most devoted of his colleagues can hardly have read them all. The mere re-affirmation of Mr. Bonar Law's rule was obviously quite inadequate to deal with the cheapening of Ministerial dignity and the possible compromising of Ministerial independence by Lord Birkenhead's procedure. Some of the broader aspects of the problem were well put by the "Saturday Review":—

The affairs of an Empire which contains some 400 million persons constitute a full-time task even for a Ministry of super-men. It is incredible that any Minister devoting himself wholeheartedly to his duties can hay« leiaure for the production of numerous articles. And if he had, the writing of such articles for money would be reprehensible in so far as it placed him under an obligation to any paper or group of papers. That it does so cannot be doubted. Ministers who write for the Press are not remunerated with reference to the literary value of their productions. They are paid enormoiuly more than any professional journalist would be, and in certain instances the income so derived may equal or even greatly exceed that which they may receive from the State. ... The fear that a (scribbling Minister will sooner or later come to depend on one or other of those magnates js perfectly real j and the fact that two out of the three most important are almost always engaged in attempts to break or make Cabinets and to govern by headlines is here worthy of notice. ... We do not of course, blame the newspapers; on the contrary, they are, perhaps, more to be congratulated on their acumen and enterprise. Their, job is to get good "copy," and a Uabmet Minister is good copy. Our complaint is against Ministers who allow themselves to be got.

The "Saturday Review" concluded its article by repeating to Lord Birkenhead "the historic advice given him by Mr. Chesterton in other circumstances: ' Chuck it, Smith.'" And fortunately Smith did chuck it. On the 18th June Mr. Baldwin informed the House of Commons that after the completion of a contract to supply certain historical articles to the magazines, "my noble friend has most readily fallen in with my desire that he should make no further contributions to journalism." He added that the rule might now be regarded as established that Ministers during their term of office will observe the same practice.