asked the Prime Minister whether, on 21st November, his secretary summoned the representatives of certain selected newspapers to Downing Street and gave them particulars of an alleged plot, amongst certain unemployed workmen to raise His Majesty's subjects in rebellion against the Crown; whether the newspapers' representatives were told not to give the source of their information; on what evidence this charge of treason was based; whether any of the alleged plotters have been apprehended; and why an official communique1 was not issued to all newspapers instead of the above course being taken?

I have nothing to add to what I said in the Debate on Thursday last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that all newspapers were invited to attend this conference?

No, Sir. I do not think I said so. I said that I thought all London newspapers were invited. But I find that, as a matter of fact, the "Daily Herald" was not there.

Why?

That is not surprising, because hon. Members will be the first to recognise that my secretary would hardly expect them to help the object we had in view. At the same time, if I had been consulted, I should have sent an invitation to that paper.

Can the salary of the gentleman who conveyed this false information to the country be called into question on a Vote of this House?

I am the person who gave instructions, and, therefore, the matter can be called into question on any opportunity of dealing with me.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman accepts responsibility for the statement that these men, the leaders of the unemployed of the country, are criminals?

That is not the question on the Paper.

Did the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to his secretary that the newspapers were to be told not to give the source of information?

I have inquired into that, since the hon. Member put the question once before. The information was given as information of fact, and it was left to the newspapers to publish it as information coming from them. If we had merely intended to send it as a communiqué we should have sent it in that form, but we gave it as far as possible to papers of all political complexions.

That shows that you were ashamed of it.

The reason why the information supplied to other newspapers was not given to the "Daily Herald" being that the "Daily Herald" would not have assisted the Government in the object in view, will the Prime Minister be good enough to state what was the real object which the Government had in view in submitting it to a few selected papers?

I have already given the information. It was to prevent a riot. I should think that the whole subject could be discussed again on the Amendment to the Address relating to unemployment.