SIR,—In an article in last week's Spectator, Mr. Brian Inglis
makes unsubstantiated statements about the late Lord Birkenhead which would clearly be libellous if he were alive and cannot fail to cause immense pain to his widely loved Widow and his children. Mr. Inglis can hardly fail to be aware when he compares a very distinguished Lord Chancellor to 'a Port Said dirty-picture vendor' that this kind of charge was made some while ago in another reputable newspaper, was contemptuously denied by some who had known Lord Birkenhead and was not substantiated.
'Throw enough mud,' it has been said, 'and some of it will stick, but will not stain.' Baseless vilification of this kind will do no permanent damage to the reputation of the late Lord Birkenhead. But unless withdrawn it will leave an ugly stain on the prestige of a rising Journalist and a weekly paper of very great traditions. I have been honoured to write intermit- tently for the Spectator during the last twenty-five years. I do not flatter myself that this will seriously affect you. But I must make it plain that until some regret is expressed I should not find myself able, if asked, to contribute to the Spectator again.—Yours faithfully.
14 Cheyne Gardens, Chelsea„SW3
PAKENHAM
[Lord Pakenham charges Mr. Inglis with making 'unsubstantiated statements' about the late Lord Birkenhead. Mr. Inglis referred to 'treasonable over- tures' by F. E. Smith, and substantiated this statement with a quotation from Smith; he said that Smith had smeared Casement's reputation and kept it smeared, which was substantiated by his description of the Government's use of the diaries; and he said that Smith used to show copies of the diaries to visitors, which he substantiated by citing Gavan Duffy as an example.—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
