Land of humbug and cant
Sir : The title 'Table Talk' is disarming, and does not invite too close scrutiny, especially where the author is usually so fair-minded. But when Sir Denis Brogan takes a wide swipe at Geoffrey Dawson, as 'a man who, by tempera- ment, was perfectly fit to edit Pravda, mutatis mutandis,' the swipe goes singularly wide (6 September). By temperament, Dawson was neither an uncritical party-liner nor a bureau- crat. He was a man of independent mind and an integrity which caused him to resign the editorship of The Times on an issue of policy in 1919. It istrue that his return to the editor- ship in 1923, with a guarantee of a free hand editorially, coincided with Stanley Baldwin be- coming Prime Minister, and that the two men found they had much in common, and that a relationship grew up rather like that of J. A. Spender with Asquith. But Dawson only sup- ported-the Government where he agreed, and if he often agreed, it is because he was much consulted and listened to. In particular he sup- ported warmly the conciliatory India policy, the Abdication policy, and the Munich policy, because he agreed with them. But where he disagreed, as over the Hoare-Laval policy, he did not hesitate to say so. I had much personal experience in the ten years from 1926 to 1936, writing editorials in the field of Commonwealth and Colonial affairs, which interested him most, and in which he was well-versed. At the outset, Leo Amery, a close friend from All Souls and South African days, was in charge of policy both with Dominions- and with Colonies. He had himself had a long connection with The Times, and some hand in Dawson's earlier career. But when he tried, on the strength of these various claims, to take a hand in Times policy, he got no change out of his old friend, who always had the clearest sense that the influence of The Times rested on its independence.
Previous page
