Curiosity still prevails regarding the nature of the difference of
'opinion which ended Mr. Garvin's association with The Observer. There was no doubt more than one subject of dis- sension, but I gather that the final split came over the editor's enthusiasm for Mr. Churchill and Lord Beaverbrook. There is ample evidence to support that if, as I understand, the feature headed " Forum," which of late appeared regularly under Mr. Garvin's article, is to be taken broadly as a proprietorial anti- dote. On February a5th " Forum " (signed on this occasion S. K.-H.) declared that " Mr. Churchill must make the great personal sacrifice of abandoning the congenial task of Minister of Defence." On that Mr. Garvin observed concisely the follow- ing Sunday, " An impossible proposition. As well might it have been suggested to Chatham that he should remain in some kind of office but cease to be Minister for War." At the same the he eulogised Lord Beaverbrook assiduously : " The alternating force and persuasiveness of Lord Beaverbrook's personality." " We judge that his present separation from the Government is unlikely to be permanent. Emergency will become compulsive." A week later again (Mr. Garvin's Churchill-Chatham-Beaverbrook article being his swan-song): " Forum," this time unsigned, gave Lord Beaverbrook a conspicuously low rating (" So far from Lord Beaverbrook being the only possible man for such a task as this, only the last two items can be said to fit his particular talents "). It was obviously a question of whether proprietor or editor would say when first.
• * * *
Previous page
