MR GARDINER IN THE ROLE OF 'MR POTTS!

Evening Star, Issue 16198, 21 August 1916, Page 5

MR GARDINER IN THE ROLE OF 'MR POTTS!

In the ' British Weekly' Sir William Robertson Nicoll thus comments on the editor of the ' Daily News,' who had grossly, vulgarly, and, ''like the Little Englander that he is and always has been —the slanderer of Lord Roberts and incidentally of New Zealand —let loose " a poison gas attack" on Mr Lloyd George, then Minister of Munitions, and now Minister of War.

—A Certain Open Letter.—

It came as a complete surprise to me that Mr Lloyd George, in his Conway speech, devoted a few scathing and burning sentences to a certain open letter which appeared lately in the ' Daily News ' from the pen of Mr A. G. Gardiner. .It never occurred to me that so great a lion would lash his tail over so little a one. But 1 found that in Wales there is a universal belief that this letter was the manifesto of certain conspirator* who thought that they would succeed in destroying Mr Lloyd George. For my own part, lam not a strong believer in conspiracies, and I have always been intensely opposed to personal recriminations between journalists. Charles Dickens has written lor all time the story of Mr Pott aud Mr Slink, of Latanswill. A sound knowledge of ' Pickwick' would save many journalists from bad mistakes. Nevertheless, since tho question has been raised so prominently, I think it rigiit to make certain ic- ! marks. v ! I glanced over the letter, n.ud it struck me that the writer had allowed something ugly and malignant to take possession of his mind. For one thing, he attacked .Mr Lloyd George fort over-estimating the gravity of the drink question. Naturally, Mr Bottomley took advantage of this to hail an ally. I do not say that Mr Gardiner and Mr Bottomley were working in concert, but if it be true, as I am told it is, that the Cadbury family own the ' DailyNews,' I certainly am amazejl that they should take this view. Also, Mr Gardiner allowed himself to fall into the unpardonable error of professing to repeat private conversation. Ido not in the least believe that he deliberately fabricated the words that he put into Mr Lloyd. George's mouth, but the fact is that no one can give, private conversation accurately unless he takes a- noto at the time. Also, the publication of private conversation given in hours of friendship is a heinous offence. Still, I did not think the letter mattered much in one way or another. This is not the first time that Mr Gardiner has written open letters. The practice is extremely dangerous, i The open letter is generally an unsavory combination of Pharisaism and insolence, and Mr Gardiner's letter to Mr Lloyd George fully merits this description. But there is another objection, to which I am loth to refer, for I have genuine respect for the Cadbury family, and 1 have always thought Mr Gardiner a good fellow and a man of ability. However, no journalist ran forget tho extraordinary histoiy of the ' Daily News' under the Cadbuty family from its beginning and through its development. That eminent journalist and honorable man, Mr St. Loe Strachey, devoted many leaders to the subject. I confess to having been somewhat annoyed byMr Strachey's persistency, and if 1 could I would have written something in reply. The fact was, however, that the articles were unanswerable. No serious attempt, so far as I know, was made to answer them. The leading Quakers themselves condemned what was done in the strongest manner. Now I observe that Mr Gardiner, who is so ready to & assume moral superiority for himself, made no attempt to reply to the ' Spectator.' < What he did was to write a very clever article, in which he assembled the foibles of Mr Strachey with the intent of doing him as much harm as he could. , There may be some possible reply to the ' Spectator.' There may be some facts which would justify what seems inexplicable. But may I respectfully suggest to Mr Gardiner that if there are ho should devote his abilities to explaining these. So long as ho does not explain them he is the very last man on earth to pose' as a moral censor over any other journalist. I. never heard two opinions on the subject. There was only one word applied by journalists to the whole business, and it was applied by journalists who in any ordinary circumstances would have found themselves on the side of the 'Daily News.' On this 1 say no more.

Of course, every man who aspires to take any part in public affairs is plaving n, rough game, and must not complain, it ho gets a few hard raps 01! the knuckles. Sa long as tlio fighting is fair and no maJico is shown, things will come right in tho long run. But when journalists begin to impute motives and to violate the laws of common decency in human intercourse, when they take to throwing dirt and stones, they ought to be severely discountenanced by everyone who values a healthy state of public opinion. A journalist must exorcise the temper that always leads to foul blows, and must not couvdarise the -uso ot poisoned weapons. Trie whole business trf writing open letters is net a business for men who know the weight of their own burdens. Mr Gardiner's performance ve--ealls tlte desperate saying : " We shall read that wo are commanded to forgive, our enemies, but wo never read that wo arp commanded to forgive our friends-." Mr Gardiner wrote as if he expected that hi-, victim would take prussic acid immediately on reading his lucubration. [rfe did not know- that the, statesman lie was slandering was by popular, consent the only man who could grapple with the Irish danger and take over the portfolio of Minister of War.—Ed. E.S.] ' BKMI4MBER TOWCESTF.R!

On my way to Conway I passed' Towcester and saw it lor the first time, and 1 recalled with intense deiight tho chapter in 'Pickwick' which tells how at the Saracen's Head in that place the Pjekwickians partook of a very'good iittle dinner—"Pair of fowls. Mr," and a weal cutlet; French beans, 'tetur-j. tart, and tidiness." Mr Pott and Mr Shirk, the Eatnnswill editors, met. That chapter, No. LI., should bo committed to heart by every journalist, and especially by Mr Gardiner. I am not much concerned about his attacks on me, for I am seasoned. Mr Gardiner makes grossly erroneous statements as to my association with other journalists and the way I spend my week-ends. If he wishes _to know the facts I shall supply him with, them, though I decline to believe that such matters interest the public. S'or can they bo publicly handled withoutviolating the comity of journalism. Mr Gardiner seems to have aimed at the 6tyle of Junius and he has achieved the, style of Mr Pott:

"I consider yon. sir," said Mr Pott, moved toy this sarcasm, "I consider you a viper. I look upon you, sir, as a man who has placed himself bevond the pale of society by his most audacious, disgraceful, and abominable conduct. I view you, sl?', ■personally and politically, in no other light than as a most unparalleled and unmitigated viper." Let me respectfully counsel Mr Gardiner to study this chapter. If he can drain his mind of ill-conditioned thoughts he mav yet do well, but he must not attempt again the moral censorship of journalism.