LORD FRENCH'S "1914"

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 75, 22 December 1919, Page 8

LORD FRENCH'S "1914"

THE BRITISH OFFICIAL HISTORIAN'S CONDEMNATION The following remarkable letter from the Hon. John Eortescne, who has resigned tho post of British Official Historian, appeared on November 7 in the London "Aforning Post" :— /Sir,—l . have been so much pestered by inquiries as to the truth of certain statements constantly repeated by a certain section of tho Press, that I shall feel obliged if you publish this letter. The post of official historian was twice offered to me, at an interval of several mouths, iu 1915 and upon each occasion was refused. In February (I think), 1916, it was offered ito mo a third time, and, very unwillingly, and under great pressure, accepted. In April, 1919, I resigned tho post of my own initiative, but agTeed to carry on the work to a cortain point. In August, 1910, I begged, once again upon my own initiative, that I might cease work" short of that point and take leave of tho history on December 31 next. This arrangement was approved, and, accordingly! I continue to be official historian until the end of this year, when I cease to bo so by my own wish, expressed ana complied with several months ago. When Lord French's book was published, I found it to bo so full of inaccu.raci&s«»that I wrote to my employers and told them that, in my opinion, my only course was to ignore its existence entirely in the official history. I received an answer confirming my judgment in tho matter. Indeed, no other M'swer was possible unless whole pages of tiho official history wero to bo devoted to the correction and refutation of Lord trenchs statements.

I hear much about my "partiality" and my abuse of my official position. I might retort that grosser partiality was never shown than when Lord French was allowed to publish his book, aud the olhceis whom ho attacks therein wero ffiorbidden to defend themselves. But it. is not a question of partiality or impartiality. It is a question of 'truth or falsehood. In my career, now a quarter of a century long, as a historian I have' endeavoured to tell tho truth without frar or favour; and when Lord French's book was entrusted to mo for review I thought it my duty to ensure, so far as in me lav. that his narrativo should not go before the public—much less descend to Dostcrilv—unchailenged. Being unnblo to use official documents, I could not exnosc the full measure of his inaccuracv: ]>ut without making use of a single confidential paper, and therefore without anv abuse whatever of my official position. I was able to prove that his book contained so many grave misstatements an to danifuro tho credit of every page in it.

"Mv fn-st .criticism of tho book was published in Juno last. No notico was taken of it then. Not a word was said about mv partiality or my abuse of .my official uosition. The intention evidently was to allow my censure—for I grant, that it was censure-to perish from want of notico: and I certainly thought that it had so ncrished. But when public interestis at. last in some degree awakened', then comes the outcry that I am partial—that. T ought to be dismissed, and even t.liat T have been dismissed. This outcry I should have ignored but for the eternal iiifiuiries mentioned at the outset of this letter. What I do await is I/ird French's refutation of the arguments and conclusions upon which T base, and still maintain, my condemnation of his book; nno' I fancy that I shall have to it for a very long time—Yours, etc., J. W. FORTESCUE. November 8