LORD FRENCH'S "1914."

Taranaki Daily News, 3 January 1920, Page 9

LORD FRENCH'S "1914."

THE BRITISH OFFICIAL HISTORIAN'S CONDEMNATION. The following remarkable letter from tjio Hon. John Korteefup, win* signed the post of British Official Historian. appeared on November 7 in the London Morning Post: Sir,—l have been so nnn>li nestcred by inquiries as to the truth of certain statements constantly- r.-pcated bv a cer'ain Section of the 'Press. ] shnl) fco] obliged if you nnhlisl, Uiis letter. Hie post of oflicia] historian wns twic offered to me. at an interval of several months, in l!il;>, and noon each occ;t>'. u refused. Tn February (I think), 't was offered to me a third 'inie. end »>rv ill-,, ,] v> ~a , | sr) . at pressure, accented.

In April, 111111. ' resigned the post of my own initiative, but c.envd to earnon the work to a certain point. Tn August, lftin. T bcEtred. once n«nin upci. my own initiative, that 1 micht cease work short of that point, and take leave r<- (be history on December :!1 next This arrangement was a-.uu'.ivnd. and. accordingly. T continue to be oflicial historian until the end of Ill's vear. when 1 cease to be so by tnv own wish, expressed and complied with several months ago.

When Lord French's hook was nnhlislmd. T found it in be ?n full of inaccuracies that T wrote to mv employera and told them that-, in mv nninir.ii. my only course was to .rion-' .is existence entirely in (he official historv. T received an answer eoivtirining mv judgment in the matter. Indeed, no oilier answer was possible xm \..-. s wmilp )W „ oi . of the official wore to be devoted to the eorreelinn and refiit.nl.ion of Lord French's statements:

I hear jmirh about mv "ptirl'nlity" and my nhi:se of mv official portion ' I | might reforv that n m „cr partiality wrs never shewn than when Lord Fr moh was allowed t, ouhlish his bonk, and the officers whom lie attacks therein were forhidden to defend, themselves. Urir. if is not a question of partiality or lei'mrtiality. It is a question 'of truth or falsehood. In my career, now a, quarter of a century'long, as a historian T have endeavored fo fell the truth without fear or favor; and when Lord French's book was entrusted tn me for review T thought it. mv d'.ity to ensure, in for 1" in me lay, that his narrative -ho" 1 ! not go before the puhlic-mueh '■•_• 'V.v....-l lo no.l.ovitv-.iinchallcnwd. Leing unahle 1o use oflieinl documents, 1 could not, expose the full measure of his inaccuracy; but. without making use of a single confidential paper, and therefore without *nv abuse whatever of mv official position. T was able tn prove that his hook contained so many grave misstatements as to damage the credit of every pace in if, • Mv first criticism of the Imnlv was published in June last, Xn nntice was taken of it then. Not a word was said about my partiality or mv abuse of my official position. The intention evidently was tn allow my ,fensure —for grunt, thai, it was censure—to perish from want of notice; and T certainly thought that it bad so perished. Put when publie interest is at last in some dco'''"o awakened, (hen comes the outcry that T am partial—that I ought to he dismissed, and even that'T have been dismissed. This outcry T should have ignored, hut for the eternal inquiries mentioned' at the outset of (his letter- What T do await is Lord French's refutation of the arguments and conclusions upon which T base, and still maintain, mv condemnation of his book; and I fancy that T shall have tn await it for a ver t y long time.—Yours, etc., J. W. FORTFSCUE. November 0.