LORD FRENCH'S BOOK

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 3, 29 September 1919, Page 5

LORD FRENCH'S BOOK

♦— CONTROVERSY ON THE AMMUNITION . SUPPLY MR. ASQUITH IN DEFENCE OF LORD KITCHENER By Teleerarjli—Prcas 1 Association-OoovrieM London, September 26. Mr. Asquith, in a letter to a correspondent, in reply to Lord French's preface to his book, stales: "The controversy was not of my seeking, but when Lord French proceeded to falsify history, apparently in pursuit of a vendetta ■ against tho fame of a great soldier, to whom Lord French was under .strong personal obligations, I was bound to intervene. The preface gives me no cause to qualify my speech. My letters to Lord French wove written after Lord Fifejnch's proposals had, happily, been discarded, largely_ through Lord Kitchener's intervention. , The subsequent operations were concluded by Lord French with much sagacity and skill. Had I suspected what Lord French now avows— that at the date of my letter of May, lfllfi. ho was engaged, Iwhind the back of his chief, Lord Kitchener, and myself. in a manoeuvre to upset the Government probably my communication would hnvo been couched in different terms. With regard to ammunition, I believe Lord Kitchener was incapable of inventing or palming off upon me a deliberate falsehood, and if it becomes ;i question of conflict of memories, I think Lord Kitchener's written record of a conversation to bo better evidence than Lord French's diary, containing, as ho savs. no reference whatever to the subject." Mr. Asquith concludes thus: "To havo a bad memory is a misfortune; not a crime, but people with' bad memories should not attsmot to write their, mvn or other people's lives.*'—Aus.-N.Z, Cabin Assn.

[Mr. Asquith, speaking at a complimentary, luncheon, replied to statements in Lord French's booh. Mr. Asquith complained that Lord; French had been given access to official and confidential f i»;mir"'ti to build up a,case Against men whose lips were closed, some by death, others by oflicial restraint. It was a flagrant breach of tnc licsd tradition's of the Public. Service. None knew better than Lord French that his chareo .■><rninst the Liberal Government, of callousness in failing to supply sufficient (runs and shells was., without foundation. Documents which would bo pubfished shortly would prove that Lord French's account of Lord Kitch-ner's visit to Pans on September, 11)14, was a travesty of the roal facts. Lord French's intended movements of tho Armv prior lo Lord Kitchener's visit had filled tho Cabinet with consternation, as they would have left the French in the lurch at a moment of extreme need. Tho French Government shared this alarm. Between September, 1914. ami March, 1915, the forces in the fioid had been increased by four times, and tho supply of munitions by nineteen times. Tho manufacturers had promised <i much larger output of munitions than whs Actually supplied. Mr. Asquith concluded by •reading iv private letter written by Lord French in May. 1915, in which he said: "In the whole history of war, no Com-mander-in-Chief has been helped in a difficult task by the head of the Government as I have been supported and strengthened by your .unfailing sympathy and encouragement." Mr. Asquith flatly denied Lord French's assertion that ho had advocated high explosives instead of shrapnel before the.war. Mr. Asquith quoted from a document, showing that Headquarters had asked the Government in November 1914, to reduce the percentage of hish explosives from 50 to 25 per. cent, He also quoted Lord. Kitchener's letter, written on tho eve of the famous Newcastle speech, in allien he said that Lord French had told him that."with the present supply of ammunition he would have.as much as the troops were able, to use for the next attack. Mr. Asquith accepted the full responsibility for Lord French's recall, which, ho said- had ho more to do with shells than with the eclipse • of tho moon.]