The Press

Randolph Writes Again

By CHRISTOPHER BOOKER

y AST August Mr. Randolph Churchill began LA series of columns for the Queen magazine, under the title 'Randolph Writes.' His first column began : 'It is an honour to be invited to write a series of articles for the Queen, a paper which I have long admired from a distance.' There seems to be some difference of opinion as to who exactly invited whom—but nevertheless, over the suc- ceeding seven months, Mr. Churchill wrote twelve articles for the magazine, the last of which appeared on March 24—Part One of his descrip- tion of a train journey to Morocco. Queen readers may have eagerly awaited his description of the second part—but they were to wait in vain. The following exchange of letters between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Jocelyn Stevens, the Queen's Proprietor and Editor-in-Chief, explains why.

On February 24, Mr. Churchill sent in his column to meet a deadline of March 8. In the covering letter he asked whether it would be 'agreable' for him to do one further piece on his journey and , then one about Marrakech. On March 11, after his piece had appeared, he sent the following letter to Mr. Stevens:

Marrakech Dear Mr. Stevens,—I regret I cannot write for your paper any longer, since your staff repeat- edly violate all the ethics of good faith which should subsist between an author and his editor. I wrote to you personally on February 24 enclosing the first part of an article I had written on my travels from the Hook to Marrakech. . .•.

I never received any answer from you, or from any of the young ladies who seem to frequent your offices. I had been told that my deadline was March 8; in fact I posted the article by air- mail direct to you on February 24, and it should have reached your office within three or four days. Apparently. it miscarried, but my secretary checked with your office and forwarded to you on March I a photocopy of the carbon I had sent her. Thus you had my copy six days ahead of the deadline, largely due to the efficiency of my staff at Stour. Thus there was ample time for you or one of your staff to have written or cabled to me how many words needed cutting, and for me to have cabled you back in good time.

What happened? A Miss Rosemary Carpenter

sent a proof to my secretary at Stour which arrived on March 6. My secretary immediately cabled me that many deletions had been made and that she was forwarding the proof by air= mail. When it arrived here on Tuesday, March 9, I found it was marked 'Please telephone corrections on Monday.'

It might have occurred to some member of your gifted staff to send me the proof direct . . . of course my copy was tampered with and mangled beyond all recognition. Nearly all my little jests which might have titivated some of your readers were cut out. It is true that our typing of Mr. Ritz's Christian name Cesar was obscure, but any member of your staff who has visited the Ritz Hotel in Paris must have observed the lapidary inscription adjacent to the desk of the concierge. It may be that your

young ladies are not as well-travelled as they ought to be, but a reference to La Petite Larousse

would have informed them that the French for Caesar was Cesar. Alternatively, they could have consulted the cultural attache at the French Embassy.

Apart from having my stuff mucked about by women, what I resent the most is that you have never condescended to reply to my letter of February 24. This strikes me as slovenly and unbusinesslike: no wonder that the same atmo- sphere has filtered down and infected those working on a lower level. I had enjoyed writing for your paper, even for the pittance you paid, and I very much regret that I now find myself forced to part company with you. We are all accustomed to the vile habits of the press lords of Fleet Street who hack their contributors' writings about as they lief. I had hoped you were a cut above these gangsters. Can it be that you have been corrupted by your recent association with the Daily Express?

Yours sincerely, Randolph S. Churchill.

On March 17, Mr. Stevens replied : Dear Mr. Churchill,—Thank you for your letter. I think it is a pity that you should see lit to resign from yet another publication for reasons that do less than justice to yourself. The reason why the galley proof of your article was sent to Stour was because when Mrs. Car- penter telephoned your secretary to ask her your address in Marrakech, she was told to send the proof to Stour. I am afraid that I do not consider Mrs. Carpenter in any way erred in complying with your secretary's instructions. Having reeked your venom on the female mem- bers of my staff, you turn on me for not replying to your letter of 24 February. I am afraid I do not expect to write and thank every regular contributor personally for every regular con- tribution, he or she sends in.

I have long considered that journalists get the proprieters [sic] they deserve. I set off as a young proprieter in Fleet Street oozing with goodwill and I was indeed proud to call mysell. a journalist. As the years have. passed I have found that my goodwill has been sorely blud- geoned. Your impatience and intolerance to- wards my hardworking and conscientious statl. mainly it appears, because they are women justifies, unhappily, my growing cynicism about the profession which you profess.

Yours sincerely, Jocelyn Stevens.

To which Mr. Churchill replied, on March 22: Dear Mr. Stevens,—Thank you for your tele- gram and letter of March 17. I must say I am amazed at your writing 'I am afraid I do not expect to write and thank every regular con- tributor personally for every regular contribu- tion, he or she sends in.' . . . I did not ask in my letter to you, nor did I expect, to be thanked by you. My letter to you asked for guidon,c on two further articles. When I first started working for Queen you told me you were editin, the paper yourself and I observe that you are still Editor-in-Chief. I have never done any work for any newspaper or magazine where I did not suppose that I had the right to com-

municate with the Editor, Editor-in-Chief or indeed the proprietor. But if you are too im-

portant or too busy to answer one of your con- tributors who has rarely intruded on your edi- torial silence I would have thought that you might have instructed someone else to deal with my letter. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are too proud to 'profess' the pro- fession of journalism. Goodness how sad.

Your knowledge of my own journalistic career seems inexact. Yours is the first magazine

for which I have had to decline to write. I was sacked from the Spectator. I greatly sympathise with your staff, but I now understand whence they derive their bad manners and slovenly habits of business.

Yours sincerely, Randolph S. Churchill.

Needless to say, both parties have consented to the publication' of this correspondence.