POLITICAL HISTORY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11366, 13 November 1922, Page 7

POLITICAL HISTORY

THE “ GALL TO ARMS " CURZON AND CHURCHIDD IN SPIRITED CONTROVERSY. WHICH IS CORRECT? By Telegraph— Press Assn.— Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association LONDON, November 10. Lord Curzon, replying to Mr Churchill, describes his statements as “characterised by copious inaccuracy and no small malevolence. n Ho declares that he attended a Cabinet meeting on September loth, despite the ill-health which was keeping him in the country, but though m UAenhonia /communication with Mr Lloyd George on the 16th, be was rot told there was any need to come to London, nor for the issue of the statement oi policy, whi'jh ho read in the newspapers on the 17tli with consternation. He was not surprised to learn subsequently that it was the work of Mr Churchill. Mr Austen Chamberlain later rang up to complain that Lord Curson was not present at the Cabinet meeting on the 16th. “ A SOMERSAULT " IN THE NICK OF TIME. MR CHURCHILL'S retort. Reuter’6 Telegram. ' LONDON. November 10. Mr Winston Churchill, in a further rejoinder to Lord Ourzon, claims that the salient facts are undisputed, and suggests that Lord Curzon should he content with: landing himself by an extraordinary somersault in the nick of time in the opposite camp, and should not make reflections upon the colleagues he abandoned. Mr Churchill, in conclusion, records the genesis of the communique of September 16th. He says that, in the absence of Lord Ourzon, Mr Lloyd George aaked that Mr Churchill should make a draft for his consideration. Mr Churchill, as he felt strongly that the public were entitled to information cozisented, and. sent the draft to Mr Lloyd George, ‘ who consulted those of his colleagues who were accessible, made certain alterations, and authorised the publication.

THE POINT AT ISSUE. The controversy arose after Lord Curzon- had criticised the action of Mr Lloyd George in appealing to the 'Dominions for military aid during the Near East crisis. The point at issue is whether Lord Curzon, as Foreign Minister, was consulted.