IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 12 January 1935, Page 8

IMPERIAL DEFENCE

DEBATE IN HOUSE OF LORDS

LONDON, January 9. Lord Mottistone raised a subject in the House of Lords which he said was of film greatest importance not only to himself hut to the House. It concerned the debate on Imperial defence. which lie i nitiated some time ,ago sflid the comments made thereon by newspapers controlled by Lord Rothermere, “who for many years has been a member of this House, although I do not know whethere is has taken his seat.” The debate, which took place on November 14, wlas widely reported not only in this country, but in countries all over Europe, Lord Mottiston© said. On November 16, there appeared statements in one of the newspapers which Lord Rothermere controlled, with enormous headlines calculated Tjij draw "the, retention of millions of readers, of what it described ~s grossly inaccurate ; state- • nients in the House of Lords by Lord Mottistone about German air strength. In the same week, Lord Mottisone said a stiil more injurious statement 'appeared in the “Evening News,” also controlled by Lord Rothermere. Rs had invited Lord Rothermere or his editors, to withdraw and apologise, but he was unable to gain satisfaction. He had told Lord Rotliermere that the leader of the House had announced that the matter was a, grave one, and would be raised that day. He had received a- telegram from Lord Rothermere saying:

“If any aspersions have been cast on vim by any newspaper of which I am a director I should have been the first to repudiate them. No one imagines that yon would intentionally mislead the House of Lords in any bit cum stances. Although I exercise general political control over the “Daily Mail,” I was not acquainted with your speech before publication. I have gone into the matter since, and would prefer to Say that your statements were incautious instead of misleading.”

flint (Lord Mottistone proceeded) was a. baffling telegram. In so far as it was a friendly message from one man to another, he would gladly say that lie had known Lord Rothermere for some time, and that the last thing he wanted to do was to have a quarrel with him. But, on the big question, the telegram made the matter far worse. If he had really' made grossly inaccrtirate statements and distorted the truth which, he was told, was a synonym for a lie—it would have been wrong for Lord Rothermere thus to attack a member except on the floor of Die House. But if Lord Rothermere was utterly, entirely, and fantastically wrong) he found it difficult to do other than denounce Lord Rothermere for not coming to the House to-day either to make good liis case or withdraw and apologise. WILD STATEMENTS. Having quoted from his speech and explained that his figures were obtained from the Secretary of State for Air (Lord Londonderry)), Lord Mciftistono proceeded: “Were Lord Rothermere in Iris place, I have no doubt that lie would at once stand up and sav, “I am sorry. I have been completely misled. Having been myself Secretary for Air I do not dispute the accuracy of the statements which have been made:. I withdraw and apologise.’ As he is not here I can only say that I now, here in tins House, denounce him for his absence, ft is wroiiu that a man who controls rs these great organs of opinion should circulate to millions of people wild statements which he could not have attempted to verify. It is high time that your lordships expressed your view that these things should not go 'on.” Lord Newton said that when he himself ;was violent iv attacked by the “Daily Mail” he brought an action and extracted £SOOO from the “Daily Mail.” Why did not Lfcrd Mottistone follow his example? He trusted that if the noble lord did not get satisfaction he would not Jios'tatc to take action and administer a lesson which was richly deserved.

Lord Londonderry said that the House would not expect him, in the absence of the leader of the House, to make any statement on the matter which had been raised, but the would say on bdhalf of the Government that it felt that the noble lord was perfectly .justified in bringing forward the matter when he found himself accused first of misleading the House and later of having made an incautious statement.