A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
MR. CHURCHILL'S position, to which I referred last week, becomes increasingly interesting. Let me say at once that I believe that in the campaign he is launching Mr. Churchill is completely disregarding all personal ends. But leadership, if it finds a response, may entail certain consequences. And it will be surprising if the " defence of peace and freedom " crusade does not provoke a very large response indeed. Organisations like the League of Nations Union and the New Common- wealth are solid behind it. So are individuals as influential as Sir Austen Chamberlain (who is not, as I stated in error last week, to be among the speakers at next Thursday's Albert Hall Meeting, though I believe he will be on the platform) ; Liberals like Sir Herbert Samuel and Sir Archibald Sinclair ; Labour men of the type of Sir Walter Citrine, Dr. J. J. Mallon and Mr. A. M. Wall, the Secretary of the London Trades Council; Mr. Lloyd George has seen the " peace and freedom " manifesto and approved it. Mr. Churchill's speech at the New Commonwealth luncheon on Wednesday was almost as impressive as the very remarkable gathering that listened to it, and it was noteworthy that cheers in equal volume were evoked by his insistence that the peace-loving nations must be strong enough to deter, and in the last resort overcome, any aggressor, and by his declaration that nothing was more ter be desired than the co-operation of the great German nation in the main- tenance of order and justice in. the world. A leader who strikes while the iron is hot may be compelled to go on moulding it—in some capacity or other.
Though Lord Hugh Cecil, more than four months after his appointment as Provost of Eton, has not yet applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, that formality is not likely to be long delayed now that the University Conservative caucus has resolved its hesitations and decided to nominate Sir Farquhar Buzzard for the Parliamentary vacancy. The Regius Professor of Medicine, shining as he is at the moment with the reflected glory of Lord Nuffield's benefactions, is undeniably a strong candidate. His nomination will greatly reduce the chances of the unofficial Conservative, Professor Lindemann. It should, on the other hand, by splitting the Conservative vote, help Sir Arthur Salter, who, standing as an inde- pendent, has considerable Conservative, Liberal and Labour backing. There are precedents for most things, but I doubt if there is any for the appearance of three resident Professors contending for the honour of repre- senting Oxford in Parliament. Any one of them would be an oddish colleague for the other University member, Mr. A. P. Herbert.
* * * Every paper has the right, indeed the duty, to keep control of its advertisement columns. At the same time, a paper that offers to sell space is under a reasonable obligation to sell it to all comers unless they propose to use it for a manifestly improper purpose. The ques- tion what is an improper purpose is often difficult and perplexing, as every editor knows. The publisher of Mr. Langdon-Davies' book Behind the Spanish Barricades, intimates that an advertisement of it which has appeared in this paper and many others was refused at the last moment by The Observer on the ground that the paper " could not take payment for an advertisement of this extreme character." Both the book and the advertise- ment are avowedly partisan—it would be fair to say partisan in the extreme—in their advocacy of the cause of the Spanish Government. Is that a good reason for refusing the advertisement ? Or ought every side to be given a fair hearing if it chooses to pay for it ? Is there involved what the publisher in question calls "a censorship of advertisements involving a grave inter- ference with British ideas and civil liberties and demo- cratic institutions " ? The whole question is easier to raise than to decide. It is not to be argued that anyone has the same right of access to a paper's advertisement columns that a Hyde Park orator has to his soap-box.
A reference to the finances of Woolworths in this column last week brings a suggestion that is well worth discussing. Has it ever occurred to these great busi- nesses—Woolworths, Marks and Spencer, Boots, and the various multiple grocers—to use some small fraction of their very substantial profits in definitely embellishing the roads and streets where they establish themselves ? As it is they cultivate a resolute uniformity. The Woolworth red and gold is familiar throughout America as well as throughout Britain, and in the midst of the heterogeneous -architecture of, say, the Tottenham Court Road, it passes muster well enough. But in the main thoroughfare of an English country-town—I can think of many examples—it is little less than a disaster. As a matter of fact, you can get uniformity completely satisfying from the artistic point of view that fits in anywhere. Messrs. W. H. Smith's bookshops arc a case in point. The various establishments in question serve many needs, and serve them well, but they might properly consider whether it would not be worth while to earn themselves the reputation of invading no township without adorning it.
" He was not at his best in a crisis. In an emergency leaders who sweat despondency are a source of weakness. I then made up my mind that the Ministry of War in the supreme trial of a tremendous struggle was not the role for which he was best fitted, and that he would render greater service to his country in a position where it would not be obvious that his bluffness was only bluff. As French Ambassador in Paris he was a success." The essential Welshman on the essential Englishman.
* * * *
Ninepence for Nothing " The secretary [of the Sydney Guild of Artists' Models] stated that the remuneration of models was from ls. lid. to 2s. 9d. an hour. The usual rate was 2s. an hour clothed and 2s. 9d. in the nude."—The Times Sydney correspondent, .
JANUS. JANUS.
Previous page
