LORD MORTHCLIFFE.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 August 1921, Page 5

LORD MORTHCLIFFE.

AN ALLEGED INTERVIEW. THE KING AND IRELAND. INTERVIEW NEVER GIVEN. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. London, July 29. An interview given by Lord Northel iff© to the New York Times, purporting to give a conversation between the King and Mr. Lloyd George with reference to tho state of Ireland, wherein tho former insisted that tho Prime Minister should come to some agreeiment with the Irish, has created a sensation here. I The interview was not published in I the London editions of the Daily Mail, I being confined to its Irish, Scottish ami [ Welsh editions. | Mr. Lloyd George, in the House of Commons, said that statements had i appeared in certain Iriflh and English I newspapers, attributing words of grave i consequence to the King relating to ; i?ris‘h policy. Tlfoy appeared, in the [form of an interview which Lord Nofthclifle had given to American newspapers, and had been published in his journals here.

Continuing, Mr. Lloyd George said:— The King authorised me to road a statement on his behalf, follows: “His Majesty has had his attention directed to Lord NorthcUffe"a interview. The statements contained in the report are a corn’pletn fabrication. No such conversations those alleged took place, nor were any such remarks made by His Majesty. His Majesty desires it to be made quite clear, as the contrary is suggested in the interview, that in his speech in the Northern Parliament, he followed the invariable constitutional practice re-

lating to speeches from the throne.” Mr. Lloyd George expressed the liope that the King’s statement would do something to sterilise the effect of the criminal malignity which was endeaveiling to stir up mischief between the AlI lies, misunderstandings bet ween the , British Empire and the United States, and to frustrate peace in Ireland. (Cheers). Mr. Thomas said the Laborites wished to associate themselves with the King’s dignified protest.

Sir Donald Mao Lean stated that the King, in repudiating the words attributed to him, acted in accordance with what people would expect.

LORD NORTHCLIFTES DENIAL. A CABLE TO THE KING. “GAVE NO SUCH INTERVIEW.” Received July 31, 5.5 p.m. Washing; u, July 29. Lord Northcliffe has cabled to the King's secretary: “Pbaj; convey to His Majesty, with my humble respects, r.~y denial of ever having ascribed to His Majesty word* or any such words as stated by the Prime Minister. I gave no such interview.’’ —Aus. N.Z. Cable Assn. Received July 31, 11.10 p.m. Loudon, July 30. Lord, biamfordham. (the King’s private secretary), replying to Lord Northcliffe’s message repudiating the interview, states the King is gkul. He confirms that. Mr. Lloyd George’s statement in the House of Commons was made by the King’s authority.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. New Yoi-m., July 29. Lord Northcliffe hoe cabled denying he ever gave the interview regarding [lreland on which Mr. Lloyd George read the King’s repudiation. The London newspaper? are publishing a den’al, dated London, that the 'British Foreign Office yesterday inspired Sir Auckland Geddes to boycott him. “It is one of those diplomatic denials, otherwise just a plain lie,” declared Northcliffe. He added: “I am sorry my friend Geddes was placed in such an embarrassing position.”—Reuter.

THE SOCIAL BOYCOTT. MORE LIGHT ON THE INTERVIEW. GWEN BY THE TIMES EDITOR. Received July 31, 5.5 p.m. New York, July 30. The World’s Washington correspondent learns that Sir Auckland Geddes’ cancellation of the dinner to Lord Northcliffe is only the first rtep in a social boycott which tire British Foreign Office mapped out to pursue the publisher round the world, it is understood orders have been sent to Lord Reading (Viceroy of India), Sir George Lloyd (Governor of Bombay), Sir Charles Eliot (British Amba sador at Tokio) and General Allenby (Br'n.sh High CommisLioner in Palestine) tjatu the usual courtesies extended to distinguished guests will be dispensed with in Lord Northcliffe’s case. It appears that Mr. H. Wickham Steed (editor of the London Tinies) dictated the interview to the New York Tinies. It is reported that the representatives in America of Lord Northcliffe’s papers later telephoned to the New York Times, obtained the interview, and cabled it to London, [attributing it to Lord Northcliffe. Mr. Steed later declared that, the interview, which attributed certain remarks to the King, contained matter which should not have been published. The New York Times explains that Mr. Steed did not revise the interview.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. LONDON PRESS VIEWS. SOME POINTED CRITICISM. Received July 31, 5.5 p.m. o London, July 30. The Morning Post says Lord Northcliffe’s mind lias been clearly overstrained; it is a ca#?e for doctors and not for politicians. We advise Lord Northcliffe’s friends, unless they take more care of him, to keep him quiet. He will suffer sooner or later from a serious breakdown. There is a point at which megalomania becomes dangerous, and the patient, must be persuaded to rest or his friends must expect the worst.

The Daily News suggests that the interview is an elaborate hoax, which illustrates the danger of peripatetic potentates of undefined status making a semi-royal progress in foreign countries. They are not only a jest in themselves, but a temptation to a practical joker. Lord Northcliffe’s interview has been definitely attributed to him by the New York correspondent of the Daily Mail, who used the following words: “The greatest interest has been aroused over an interview with Lord Northcliffe published in the New York Times.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Asml \