HONOURS SCANDAL.

Grey River Argus, 20 July 1922, Page 5

HONOURS SCANDAL.

DID FORRES TRADE WITH ENEMY? AND DID FOREIGN OFFICE WINK AT IT? t A. and N.Z. Cable Association.] (Rec. July 19, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, July 18. In tlie House of Lords, Lord Forres referred to Sir R. McNeill’s allegations in the Commons regarding the Balfour—Williamson company, with which Lord Forres is identified, and which (Sir R. McNeill says traded with the enemy in South America, Forres telling his agents in Chile he (Forres) could defeat the regulations. In reply Lord Fortes stated the whole of the firm’s trading transactions had the cognisance and approval of the Government. He said Sir R. McNeill’s statement about the alleged letter to their Chile agents was “absolutely untrue, without foundation.’’ The allegations were despicable. The Lord Chancellor said Lord Forres had been cruelly wronged. No man who claimed Parliamentary privilege should make a statement deeply reflecting on the honour of a member of the House of Lords without making the statement publicly unsheltered by privilege. FORRE’S PEERAGE BOOKED EARLY. LONDON, July 18. In tlie House of Lords the Lord Chancellor stated that Lord Forres was offered a post in the Government and a peerage ns far back as 1906. He hoped Sir Ronald McNeill would not refrain from repeating his charges in the circumstances free from the pro I eci ion of the privilege as a member of Parliament.