A SECRET COMPACT

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 85, 9 April 1924, Page 14

A SECRET COMPACT

GEORGE - SPENDER INCIDENT

JOURNALISTS' INDISCRETION

EXPLANATIONS AND DENIALS.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, 14th February. Mr. Harold Spender's alleged journalistic indiscretion has provided some in-i teresting ncwspapev\reading.. It will be remembered that i the !'Ne*w York World" published an interview with Mr. Lloyd George, in which the ex-Prime Minister was represented as saying: "There was the 15 years' military occupation of the Rhine frontier by the Allies. I Was opposed to it.- . I seemed to foresee that'if the French once occupied the frontier they would not leave it—and my forecast has already been borne out by events. But I was called away to London at the critical moment in that negotiation by the famous attack in the House of Commons organised by Lord Northcliffe's telegram. When I returned I found that President Wilson had' surrendered to' M. Clemenceau, and thus the French gained the right to occupy,the Rhine country that was finally included in the Treaty. "I have only quite recently discovered that during my absence in London M. Clemenceau and President Wilson signed a secret compact on the question. Yet I have always been attacked by many people in England as the villain of that piece. I have just received the documents from the Foreign Office. The French now wish to publish the agreement between President Wilson and M. Clemenceau, and desire me to agree. It is a little late to ask for my consent. I have never seen the documents beiorc." :MR.. LLOYD GEORGE'S DENIAL. This "interview" was cabled from New York back to England, and appeared in the London papers. At once Mr. 'Lloyd George made a statement to the Press: "I did not give the interview referred to," he- said, "and I was more than surprised when my attention was called to it by telephone messages from London newspapers. I cannot accept the views attributed to me in the 'interview' as accurately setting out the facts of what happened at a critical moment in the Peace Conference. "As to those facts, the official statement issued by the French Foreign .Office is substantially correct. - I was called away from ■ Paris to London in April, 1919, to take part in, important discussions raised in the British Parliament on the question of reparations. 1 found on my return to Paris that during my absence an agreement had been arrived at between President-Wilson and M. Clemenceau on' two very important issues. One was the military occupation of the Rhineland and the other the guarantees by the United States of America of the French frontier against acts of aggression by Germany. "To describe this-agreement as a 'secret compact' between the late President Wilson and M.. Clemenceau is ridiculous. President 'Wilson, I need hardly say, acted with perfect loyalty, and it cannot be imputed as blame either to the late President or to M. Clemenceau that I was called back to". England at a time when these grave matters were ■under 'discussion. The fact, that the late President and M. Clemenceau had come'to an agreement during my absence was communicated to me on my return, and the agreement as to the occupation of the Rhineland .was after some modification ultimately incorporated in tha Peace' Treaty." \ MR1. SPENDER'S EXPLANATION. Mr. Harold Spender, the writer of the so-called interview, issued a statement by the Press in which he said: "What i wrote ■ for the American paper was a description of Mr. Lloyd George's' house and grounds, and of his life there, with a few observations thrown in—which they appear.-to. have 'cut'—after spending a week-end there. This observation which has attracted so much attention was only a few lines out of the whole article, but still I thought it was desirable that it should be known.

■■ "I must say, on behalf of Mr. Lloyd George, that lie did not authorise an interview. I should like to corroborate his statement. If there' is any carelessness in the matter it is entirely mine. 1 take all the blame. I did jiofc ask his permission to use anything he'said, and if I have gone beyond what I should have repeated I am extremely sorry. I was asked to. write a description of Mr. Lloyd George's life, and I put iv a few observations here and there." "I STICK ,T0 EVERY WORD." ■ Mr. Spender wrote in'a rather different strain to- the "New' York World." "1 _ stick to every word I said in my article for you," lie says, "and if anything, what' I w-r'ote was .ah under-statement-of what Mr. Lloyd George said. It is painful for all of tis to raise such issues while the great man, who ■was the" harbinger of peace to Europe, lies newly dead, but we have to consider .the living. The • frontiers .are an armed camp. It was Mr. Lloyd George who"fought against acceptance of the Treaty clauses which are keeping the French where they are, and any revelations that can help to get them out are •justified. ' "I. quite . -understand Mr. Lloyd George's position. 'He is caught be■tween several.fires.. He intends; to raise this issue in .his own way; arid I have anticipated him.' /His so-called denial is really an attempt to envelope the whole issue- in a cloud of words, but what he said to me lie said before several witnesses, including.Mr. C. P. Scott, editor of the 'Manchester Guardian,' and he cannot and does not deny"it. Of course, it was a secret compact to which he referred, and he displayed the greatest anger in discussing it,- but if the word compact arouses such universal disturbance, let us call it whatever lie likes understanding, agreement. The result was the same. He returned to London, M. Clemenceau inveigled Mr. Wilson into a surrender on the supreme issue, and when Mr. Lloyd George returned he was unable to do anything against the united opposition of the two other principal Powers.

' Let me make is clear that Mr. Lloyd George did not blame Mr. Wilson. Ho explained Mr. Wilson's surrender as I gave it in the article for you, but he blamed 31. Clemenceau for pressing Mr Wilson to yield while he (Mr. Lloyd George) was away. It was a secret compact, which was.arrived at behind Mr Lloyd George's back, and was not "revealed to him until now. ]. protest against arriving at secret agreements by statesmen behind the backs of their people and nations, and the reason I gave publicity to this one was my feelin" that somebody ought to dare to let the world know. It is the duty of the Fourth Estate to fight against the Third Estate arriving at these secret a«renmenty. Our function is publicity,"and I think it the duty of a. journalist now and again to break down all barriers 1,, h uve.bf. en indiscre. et i" this case'i Mull be indiscreet again- where a.ecret

i agreements are concerned, and I do not care wnut they think about it." ■ PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS. „11l.e,,"^e w York World" telegraphed Wie lull text of Mr. Spender's statement ;? iMr- L%d George at his house in the country, and asked him to comment .on it. Mr.- Lloyd George's reply was: 1 ■; tiantl. °y every W 6rd of my statement which appears in the Press, and I decline to enter into any .further discussion as to private conversations with guests i n my own house." tv 7,!', eI"S as';ed by the "New York World correspondent if he could con\i m n Y !l eny Mr- Spender's 'statements. Mi\ U P. Scott replied : "I have nothing whatever to say on a purely private conversation." " GOVERNMENT'S APOLOGY. While these statements were Hashing across the cable lines and appearing m various newspapers, the British Embassy m Paris was acting under instructions from London. Before the facts were known, the regrets of the British Government- were expressed to the JJrench Government in the event of the interview having been inaccurately reported. Later another demarche" was made m order to inform JM. Poincare th; t tiie whole thing was to be regarded as apocryphal. "Many nice things," says a Paris correspondent, "are being said about Mr. itamsay Mac Donald in the French Press to-day Pleased, in the first place, that Mr. Lloyd George should have got what they regard as a rap over, the knuckles lroni the British Prime Minister, th» newspapers are also ready to appreciate as it was meant the British Govern!i"n esPression of regret to the Qua: a Ursay on the subject of the interview. Comment to-day, in other words, reflects closely the good, impression produced in official quarters, and Mr. Ramsay MaoJJonald.'s action is taken as a sign that he wishes to place Franco-British relationson a basis of cordiality and frank-