WHISPERING GALLERY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19965, 6 December 1926, Page 9

WHISPERING GALLERY

CHARGE AGAINST PEARSON. : MR ALLEN LANE’S EVIDENCE. (Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, December 4. (Received Dec. 5, at 11.30 p.m.) The hearing was resumed to-day of the charge of false pretences against Hesketh Pearson arising out of the publication of “The Whispering. Gallery.” Mr Allen Lane said that Pearson told him that he had written a book from Sir Rennell Rodd’s diary with Sir Rennell Rodd’s approval. , The hearing was adjourned until next Saturday when it is expected that Sir Rennell Rodd’s evidence will be taken.— A. and N.Z. Cable. AUTHORSHIP OF THE HOAX. PEARSON’S CHEQUE STOPPED. LONDON, November 22. Sir Rennell Rodd, P.C., who was British Ambassador at Rome from 1908 to 1919, and who is the author of several works, in a letter to The Times and the Daily News, says; “A representative of John Lane (the Bod ley Head, Ltd.), has just informed me that Pearson has attributed to me the authorship of ‘The Whispering Gallery, and professed to b© acting as my intermediary in insisting on a pledge of inviolable secrecy on my behalf. . ‘‘l told the representative that 1 had never seen the supposed diary nor Pearson although I see so many people that I could not be certain on the latter point. 1 expressed surprise that in view of my public record Lane’s could for a moment have entertained the idea that 1 was responsible for such a deplorable volume. “The representative informed me that Pearson professed to know me intimately and related many personal anecdotes about which I was not curious enough to m“Pearson professed to have been in communication with me during Friday and Saturday regarding the withdrawal of the book, yet I departed for Milan on Thursday to attend a board meeting, and returned at midnight on Sunday. I h , e , ie statements, therefore, are as false as the attribution of the authorship. “But for the grotesqueness of the invention which' has caused the withdrawal of this alleged diary, it is conceivable that 1, who now am 68 years of age, might some day be hold posthumously responsible for its authorship. From such a fate, public reputations have the right to be protected. The Daily Mail, in a leading article, declares that the case is one for the Public Prosecutor, because it constitutes an attempt, under particularly abominable circumstances, to obtain money under false pretences from publishers who had been the victims of one of the most impudent literary forgeries on record. The cheque for advance royalties sent to Pearson has been Tile Earl of Birkenhead, when interviewed by the Daily Mail, said: The incident raises wider issues than the present book —it involves the question of how far it is justifiable to include real or imaginary reminiscences of alleged private conversations with public men. I hope that, the fate of “Hie Whispering Gallery will warn garbage manufacturers and. their publishers that they cannot with impunity slander the dead and insult the living. Xiie practice of some modem novelists, for ex ample, H. G. Wells and Arnold Bennett, of modelling their characters upon existing personages is highly objectionable. What the Daily Mail describes as • a queer sort of statement to expect to receive from a man who was negotiating for the sale of faked garbage” was handed in to the hall porter at the Daily Mail office, signed “Hesketh Pearson. Ihe communication reads: “I definitely stated prior to the publication of the book that the .diarist would repudiate all connection with the work when and by whomsoever he might bo approached.” Pearson added that he acted only as an intermediary, and that, if there wore any fabrication, he was not responsible for it. He asserted that he was prevented from giving any clue to (he diarist’s identity. The Daily Mirror said that in 1921, Pearson published under his own name a book called “Modern Men and Mummers. Tn it,’’ says the paper, “he confessed to having shaken hands with the Countess of Oxford, from which he drew sufficient material for a short sketch; but his pen portraits did not reveal a very intimate knowledge of their subjects.” A later message stated that Pearson had apologised to Sir Rennell Rodd for the use of the latter’s name in connection with the publication. He affirms that Sir Rennoll was not the author and that he did not participate in the preparation or publication of the book. . Pearson now stands charged with obtaining a cheque under false pretences.