LLOYD GEORGE

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18069, 17 March 1923, Page 9

LLOYD GEORGE

SECRETS TOLD AFTER VERSAILLES CONFERENCE POINCARE AND NITTI ON THE DEFENSIVE BY CABLE—PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT (Received 0.5 p.m., March. 16.) London, March 14. Concerning' -war memoirs, Mr Lloyd George says: A storm, is working up over the publication by public servants of information coming into their possession in the course of official careers. The immediate occasion is Mr Winston Churchill’s story of the war. It is rather late in the day to make all this fuss about the publication of war documents, for generals, admirals, and ministers in all lands, including ours, liave. in the last three years, inundated the European and American public with a flood of reminiscem ces, explanations, and criticisms on attacks and defence. In the conduct of the operations, either with the Groat War, or with the Great Peace, warriors on land and sea have displayed unprecedented eagerness to inform the public of their share in the great victory, and how much more brilliant that share would have been but for the wrong-headedness or stupidity of some collaborator. Statesmen liave been engaged in disclaiming responsibility for particular parts of the Versailles Treaty, and have striven hard to prove it attributable to pressure which they were unable to resist from other actors in the drama.

THE SECRETS. In each, highly confidential information was disclosed. Secret documents used iii Cabinet ana Council proceedings were published, without the slightest regard for precedent. General, admiral, or minister criticises, on the strength of the half disclosed minutes or documents, some other public functionary. What is the latter to do? His reputation is at stake.' Is he not to be allowed to correct misquotation ? Take the case of ministers who played an important part in the war or peace, whose action was subjected to malignant and persistent misrepresentation. A minister knows that a full and fair quotation would clear his good name. Mere denial would not cany weight. Full revelation would settle the dispute. Publication cannot conceivably affect any public interest and would supply no information which would serve an enemy country. He is defamed by men with access to secret information. Why should the country deny him the same privilege for bis protection There is such a thing as fail" play, even when politicians are attacked. FRENCH'S BOOK. So far as the British are concerned, the writing of books ol this type started, I think, by Lord French, in which he does not hesitate to quote textuallv secret memoranda. Lord Fisher, in his book, gives examples his own intervention at the War Council meetings. Sir William Robertson, for over two _ years confidential adviser to Cabinet, in his book, when it suits his argu- 1 ment, gives the public bis account of Avhat passed around the table. Of two authors who collaborated } in the writing of Sir Douglas Haig’s Command, one was Haig’s private secretary. This book is even less reticent. Writers not only summarise some of the secret proceedings of the Supreme War ■ Council, and War Cabinet, but give extracts of their decisions. These are. freely used as a basisi of animadversion to the Council and Cabinet of that day, and curiosity is aroused as to the ; source of the knowledge dis- ! played. In addition, there are! endless magazine and newspaper articles, most of them clearly sup-1 plied with secret information b> j men who acquired it in an official capacity. What happened in j reference to the secret conclaves 1 framing the Peace Treaty, affords an illustration of the way these ' revelations occur. After the signature of the Treaty, President Wilson was strongly of opinion that the documents ought to ho treated purely, as a private conversation. he objected to communication of accounts in notes of these conversations, in which all spoke their minds with great freedom, as an improper use might afterwards be made of these docu- : naonts. THE TIGER’S VIEW. M. Clemenceau did. not think the documents could be regarded : as private property. Signor Sonnino. thought they should not bo considered as official documents. I also felt bound to enter a cave- • at, if attacks were made on poli-; tical heads. I might have been • forced to refer to notes. M. Clemenceau agreed that it might ■ bo impossible to refuse extracts from the process verbeaux to prove particular facts. I. was the first to safeguard the interest of persons whom 1 felt certain to he; attacked for (heir share in (hoi Treaty; I am the last io take' advantage of the proviso. What followed? Bolh Clemenceau and. Wilson wen 1 attacked by political opponents, and in seif defence ilrey authorised the publication of secret reports. M. Clemenoeau i

trusted his defence to M. Tardieu in liis book, “The Truth. About the Treaty.” TJie whole book is based on "international proeeedings of a secret nature. M. Poincare, in maligning his rivals, has not refrained from making full use of information gained as President of the Republic. According to Count Nitti, M. Poincare makes somewhat similar disclosures in articles in the “revue des Deua Mondes.” All these disclosures were partially truncated, therefore a misleading impression was created, unfair to the other actors in the great drama. That is undoubtedly what compelled President Wilson to hand his' documents to Mr Ray Baker, hence his book, “Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement.” It is mostly baaed on tho secret minutes of" tho Supreme War Council. Nitti expressly states lie did not publish any documents not intended for publication. Nevertheless he prints a memorandum of myself, for the conference in 19.19 entitled, “Some Considerations for the Conference before it Finally Drafts Terms.” I mention these matters not by way of arraignment of . various distinguished men for divulgingsecrets which they aught to have kept under lock and key, bub ( o point out that the general miles under which confidential material can be used are not applicable to the circumstances of the Great War, and the pence that ensued. The * disclosures made for . criticism and aspersion of individuals have gi yen assailed parties, a special position which, in justice, cannot be overlooked. —A. and N.Z. (Able.