The violent attacks on The Times on account of our publication of a despatch from Amiens on Sunday last have ceased as suddenly as they began. As we explained yesterday, the attacks were delivered in ignorance of the fact that the despatch was published, not only with the consent, but at the definite request, of the head of the Press Bureau. In these circumstances we should have failed in our public duty had we refused to comply. Mr FE Smith stated in his speech in the House of Commons on Monday night: “I myself examined the article, certain references were excised, and it was returned with my own initials upon it, and I take the responsibility of having returned it, initialled by me in the shape in which it appeared in the paper. I think now that if one had known everything that was going to happen, and perhaps had had a little more time, it would have been better if I had written a note to the Editor asking him to consider whether, quite apart from the legal powers which I possessed, it was a wise article to publish. I think now it would have been much better if I had done so.”
Mr Smith’s statement is incomplete. He did, in fact, send a signed note to the Editor begging him to publish the dispatch. That note is in our possession; Mr Smith’s omission to refer to it in his speech is altogether disingenuous.
We have already received both public and private recognition of the correctness of our action. We acknowledge in particular the following passage in a leading article in yesterday’s Westminster Gazette: “We are glad to testify that [The Times] has completely vindicated itself in regard to the publication of the article which caused great and, as it now turns out, excessive despondency.”
Sir AB Markham, MP, writes to the Editor under yesterday’s date: “The Prime Minister owes you an apology for the attack he made on your journal yesterday at question time … I hold no brief for The Times, but your action in this matter has been completely vindicated, and I am sure the Prime Minister, who is always generous and just, will take the earliest Parliamentary opportunity of withdrawing in the House the charge he made against you.”
Advertisement