A Spectator's Notebook I HAVE been handed the following letter addressed
to 1 the EDITOR of The Spectator by Mr. Lloyd George :— Snt,—Tanus finds my description of the episode which led to the fall of the Asquith ministry singularly . jejune." I think he will recognize on reflection that: it is unfair to charge with meagreness an account of which only extracts have as yet been published. He is not entitled to pass that judgement till he has . had an opportunity, - of reading the narrative as -it will appear in full in my book. And the questions he raises about Lord Northcliffe's share in-the matter suggest that he.has either failed to read with sufficient care the records of Tom Clarke and Lord Beaver- . brook from which he quotes,_or has formed a preju- diced opinion on the issue, too deep-rOated for their, impartial evidence to Modify. ' . . .
In regard to the point on which Janus lays sukeme stress, may I reiterate that When 'Mr. 'Asquith • and I came to terms on. Sundak -morning (December 3rd,, 1916) J did not either directly, or; indirectly communicate that fact to Lord North- cliffe or anyone connected with The Times? If. Lord Northcliffe called at the War Office at 7 o'clock that evening I did not see him; as Mr. Bonar Law' was with me from the moment I left Downing Street ‘.
in his company until 8.80 p.m. .
That , is, my straightforward answer, to Janus's . portentous question., May I assure him that neither it nor the statement in my book is worded with any adroitness of "special saving virtue' to cover over some hidden reservation? The real facts have recently been published by Lord Beaverbrook, . Tom Clarke and others. I was far too busy with ,the terrible duties of the War to spare thought , at that time for the answering of misinformed gossip, and unhappily many honest men formed• quite erroneous impressions on the basis of one- sided accounts. The full truth which I now give backed by documents will correct those impressions in every fair mind.—I am, Sir, &e., D. LLOYD GEORGE.
There are only two' comments I- should -desire to make. In the first place it was fair to assume that the Telegraph article dealing with this particular episode was taken as it stood from the future volume. I fully agree that ' if it is only an incomplete extract it is unfair to call it jejune. Secondly, Mt. Lloyd George answers my question about the- episode at the War Office on the' Sunday evening quite definitely, and this clears up a. not unimportant point of history. But his letter leaves, or creates, one discrepancy. Mr. Lloyd George mentions that "The real facts have recently been published by Lord Beaverbrook, Tom Clarke and others." But' what Mr. Tom Clarke - says is that Lord Northcliffe' On that evening "returned to town after visiting his- mother in the country and at seven o'clock he was at the War Office with L. G." It now appears that though he may have been at the War Office he was not with L. G. But Mr. Lloyd George, as he says, has given a: straightforward answer to my question and I am grateful: font.
* * a ,*
Previous page
