[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] feel that, having read
your leading article on the above, I cannot refrain from lodging a complaint at your attitude. It does not accord with the traditional fairness of the Spectator to sneer at Mr. Lees-Smith as a person not fit to judge whether a witness is telling the truth or no for no adequate reason. Your attitude seems to be an echo of the Times leader on the Report, which surely was in the. worst possible taste. Whether Mr. Lees-Smith was intelligent enough for the job or no, he at least felt it to be his duty to give a lengthy explanation for his decision in accepting Miss Savidge's evidence, whereas according to the Majority Report Inspector - Collins was a credible witness because he was a married man with children and had been commended ninety-three times. Your statement that it is impossible to get a clear idea of a witness if one is not present in Court is satisfactory as a basis for disarming criticism, but the fact remains that in print Miss Savidge's evidence read very truthfully. It is true to say that she was never tripped up, and, considering that her " education " was occasionally politely laughed at, that was remarkable.
The ironic beauty of the whole thing is that there was cor- roborated evidence for the police ; hence, to view the matter in . our .good conservative way, Miss Savidge was a liar ! Iyery effort was made, and is apparently being made, to dis- credit her. For example, the half-dozen or more questions about the propriety of smoking a cigarette in the presence of two police officers admit of but one conclusion—that she was therefore a fast " person. Was that quite sporting ? To people who read the verbatim report the object of the inquiry seemed to be to prove that Miss Savidge was guilty of the charge brought against her, for nobody could sensibly think that a charge of perjury could be sustained against the two Hyde-Park constables, whatever the talk in Parliament and the Press. And, of course, if one keeps one's ears open, it is pretty obvious that most people think that she was guilty.
To me, a youngster of twenty-four years, it seems very rough luck, and I wish to say that I am very sorry for Miss Savidge, and that I admire the courage and good sense of Mr. Lees-Smith.
I also see that " Watchman " in the same issue advises two young Conservative M.P.'s to curb their impulses to tell the truth when it is to their Party's interest to keep quiet. Surely, for the Spectator, which I read as much for its good influence as for its very entertaining contents, to admit that the truthful person cannot hope to succeed, and to advise him to take to the wide and .easy path which most people follow, is to admit that all virtue has gone from our public life and all hope from your youthful readers ? But I suppose my youth renders my criticism valueless.--I am, Sir, &c., S. R. J. ADDISON. 42 Huntingdon Road, East Finchley, N. 2.- [To say that the long experience of Sir John Bankes and Mr. Withers should make them better judges of evidence than Mr. Lees-Smith is no " sneer at Mr. Lees-Smith." Our correspondent need not take an pied de la &tire the irony in which " Watchman " indulged for a moment.--En. Spectator.]
Previous page
