A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
TT is a mistake to judge by-elections (or any other election for that matter) on their face-value. Take, for example, Oxford and Dartford. The Oxford result was generally hailed in the Government camp as a signal Government triumph. Dartford is described in the Opposition Press as "a smashing blow to the Tories," and it is a fact that the turnover of votes was sufficient in the latter case (since the Government majority at the last election was small) to give the seat to Labour, while at Oxford it only sufficed to halve the Government majority. Yet if you reckon the turnover by percentages, which seems fair in view of the difference in the size of the constituencies, you find that at Dartford it was no more than 4.1 per cent., whereas at Oxford it was 6.7. That seems to qualify the "smashing blow" claim a little. At the same time it is open to the Opposition to claim, if it likes, that in the first two of the series of Post-Munich by- elections the Government only polled 58,073 votes against 58,877 (a difference of less than r per cent.). But it would be by no means fair, particularly in respect of Dartford, to represent Munich, or foreign policy generally, as the only issue.
* * * * The much-predicted visit of Mr. Oswald Pirow, Minister of Defence in the South African Union, to Herr Hider to discuss the colonial question may, of course, be an inaccurately predicted visit. On the whole it may be hoped so. For Mr. Pirow is credited with the view that Germany should have territory in Africa, but not South-West Africa or Tanganyika. Anyone is, no doubt, at liberty to discuss anything unofficially with anybody, but the colonial question is a singularly delicate matter, and unless Mr. Pirow con- templates the allocation to Germany of some part of the Union's territory (other than South-West Africa), or alter- natively (which is improbable) is requested by Mr. Chamberlain to discuss the question at Berlin on behalf of the whole Commonwealth, it is difficult to see what his status in the matter would be. But, as I say, the whole story, persistent though it is, may be a canard.
* * * * The " broadsheet " habit is growing rather remarkably. And remarkably is the right word, for why in the fourth decade of the twentieth century, when newspapers and reviews of every quality and colour might be thought to supply the whole needs of thinking men, should we revert to the habits of the early eighteenth and circulate news- letters representing simply the comments of a single individual on things in general ? These reflections are prompted by the appearance of the latest of such publications (its age is still less than a fortnight) styled with majestic simplicity The Broadsheet and brought into being, as its first issue ob- serves rather acrimoniously, "because of dissatisfaction with existing news-letters, which consist of (t) Commander King-Hall's Newsletter, (2) The Week, (3) The Whitehall Letter, (4) The Diplomatic-Political Correspondent." Into the invidious comparisons thus invited I have no idea of entering, particularly as I have never heard before of the third and fourth of the organs quoted. The identity of the editor of the new addition to literature (whose field of comment ranges from foreign policy to prostitution) is veiled--except to anyone who chooses to scan a London Directory and find the tenant of 3 Pair South, to King's Bench Walk, Temple.
* * * * Some sidelights on the patent medicine industry, on which Lord Horder and others have been writing in The Spectator, have been reaching me from different quarters. One of them has a bearing on the habitual silence of the daily papers on this subject : I am told that a certain paper draws L3oo,000 a year from patent medicine. advertisements ; if that is so there are certainly other papers whose revenue from that source must be reckoned in millions. Then there is a circular, marked "Private and Confidential" (in spite of which its original recipient sends it on to me) issued to clients by a firm of London advertising agents holding up as an awful example of" the meddling of bureaucratic busy- bodies" the application of legislation in force in the United States ; for instance, "a world-famous laxative is forbidden to advertise that it is a competent treatment for skin troubles ; that it puts the entire system in order and is of aid in the treatment of influenza " ; "a well-known tooth-paste has to cease alleging that it 'goes deeper,' and that it has long been used by dentists everywhere to combat gum trouble." All this seems to me very salutary, but I can understand the views of advertising agents on the subject. • * * * I see that a rather rigorous Howard League speaker has been condemning, or at least questioning, the new earnings scheme in convict prisons on the ground that it leads to gambling. It does unquestionably ; there can be no manner of doubt about that—unless some of my ex-convict friends have been misleading me very wantonly. The speaker's suggestion was that the earnings (which average about 9d. a week or less) should be banked and given to each man on his discharge. You might as well abolish the scheme out of hand as that. Convicts are not normally provident persons. The tobacco and other little luxuries they can buy with their weekly earnings have made an astonishing difference to prison life—as men, officers, Governors and Prison Commissioners alike testify—and the whole round of prison life runs smoother in consequence. Deferred gain would interest no one. The gambling is a pity, no doubt, but no large sums can be involved, for no large sums are available, and to end the scheme on that account would be as harsh as it would be impolitic. As it is I have heard of cases, and I am glad to mention them, of convicts who have saved every penny they earned and from time to time sent out the little totals, through the prison officials, to their wives. That means in the circumstances quite extra-
Previous page
