LORD BIRKENHEAD ANGRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 January 1928, Page 4

LORD BIRKENHEAD ANGRY

A “FOOLISH INVENTION.” LONDON, November 30. The Earl of Birkenhead was the sixth speaker in the 'Oxford Union Society debate on the motion “That this House has no confidence in His Majesty’s 'Government.” His son, Viscount Furneaux, who is a Christ Church undergraduate, was in the crowded audience in the union debating hall. Over 600 undergraduates were there and dozens of them squatted on the floor and in gangways. Mr R. T. D. Acland, of Balliol, who proposed the motion, said Lord Birkenhead was revisiting the scene of early triumphs in his undergraduate days. Mr Acland denounced the Government on the ground that it was optimistic in the face of-danger, did not face economic problems and treated all its opponents as enemies of the State.

There was a dramatic interruption to a speech by Mr D. M. Foot (Balliol) in support of the motion. According to a story he had heard, said the young speaker, Sir John Simon and Lord Birkenhead had once tossed up a coin to decide which party they should join. Lord Birkenhead jumped from his seat at this and almost ran to the table. “I must deny that,” he said, in the hush that followed. “That story, which has been repeated often, Is a stupid and foolish invention.” Then he turned about slowly and went back to his chair. Mr Foot stood still for a few seconds and then he bowed deeply to Lord Birkenhead and said, amid laughter, “I am sorry. I have thought better of the noble lord.”

Lord Birkenhead, who did not rise until a late hour, complained of the length, of the speeches of the Liberal supporters of the motion. Reverting to the story about Sir John Simon and himself, he said: —“It has just been repeated as characteristic Liberdl pleasantry by Mr Foot. It has every quality of the Liberal joke. In the first place, it is a lie; in the second, it is not funny; and in the third, it is calculated to give offence. And when it is pointed out to the honourable gentleman, in a very polite manner, that it possesses all these defects, he says he is very sorry, but he thought better of me. “What does he mean? I suppose he is an ethical controversialist. Does he mean that he would have thought better of me if I had changed my political convictions, on a spin of a coin? I care nothing about what he thinks of me, but I think of the wound the criticism must be to Sir John Simon.” (Loud laughter.) The motion was lost by 361 to 313.