27 DECEMBER 1919, Page 10



SIR,—May I reply shortly to Sir Henry Knollys's letter ? Of course the fact of his having been killed adds nothing to the value of my son's evidence. Nothing of the kind was suggested by me. It did, however, account for the fact that it was I, and not he, that was writing to you; that was my sole reason for alluding to the fact. I said not a word as to the value of his evidence, as I thought your opinion, as far as you were able to form one from the papers sent you, must of course he held to be more unbiassed than mine. While to me they showed no trace of distortion in obedience to the maxim de mortuis nil nisi bonum, you might have thought differently. Each of them bore on the question of good faith and credibility. I wrote *imply and solely because I thought I could not decently remain silent while statements which I believed, and still believe, to be entirely true were being snowed under by denials of them made both on the ground that events could not have occurred as stated, and also on the ground that Mr. Graham was not a reliable witness. I appreciate your own criticism, and indeed named' the period to which I referred so that inferences too sweeping might not be drawn. Mr. Graham's book, written of a period three years later, does, however, pro tanto, widen the basis of inference. Finally, if Sir Henry Knollys, with whose view I largely sympathize, cannot admit that any one man's evidence could modify it, then I can say no more. On the other hand, if he thinks it a question of what the evidence is worth, then I should be very willing to let him see the same few papers which I sent to you; this would, however, leave the question of my own credibility as it is. Of course there is no question of infallibility.—I am, Sir, &c., E. H. &Timm. 18 Hyde Park Square, W.