A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
IAM not surprised to see Sir Arthur Salter's broadcast of last Friday on Shipping in Time of War cited by authorities on road transport, who take it as text for an urgent demand for the development of road systems and the provision of an adequate supply of lorries for the service of key-ports in Wartime. With that problem I have no concern here, but in view of Sir Arthur's candi- dature at the Oxford University-by-election it is a pertinent reminder of the mass of administrative experience with which he would fortify his contribution to discussions on questions of vital and immediate importance in Parliament. He had control (subject, of course, to the Minister of Shipping) of the whole of the merchant tonnage of the Allied Powers in 1917—when the submarine menace was at its worst—and his resolute co-operation behind the scenes with one or two other officials at the Admiralty and the Ministry of Shipping was mainly responsible for resort to the convoy system which in the end saved the whole situation. Sir Arthur Salter happens to be a Professor, but the electors of Oxford, if they vote as I hope they will, would be sending something very different from the ordinary Professor to the House of Commons to support or criticise Ministers, as the case may be, in debates on sonic intensely practical problems which the House will have inevitably to face.
* * * *
The retirement of Sir Michael McDonnell from the. Chief Justiceship of Palestine has attracted particular attention on account of the severity of Sir Michael's strictures on the actions of the Government of Palestine in some of his recent judgements. The retiring Chief Justice (who has had considerable colonial experience in various capacities) was President of the Cambridge Union a year or two after Edwin Montagu, subsequently Secretary of India, and the present Bishop of Jarrow, and a year or two before Mr. J. M. Keynes and Canon Mozley of St. Paul's. He was an ardent politician, and will not have forgotten a certain evening when Mr. John Morley was being entertained by his college, and a group of undergraduates (among whom he was conspicuous), determined to extract a speech from the distinguished visitor, signified their desires by banging on the Combination-room door with a frying-pan and dangling a paper-knife against the window from the rooms of the present editor of The Spectator on the floor above. Mr. Morley did not make a speech ; the Dean did. * * * * A religious article by Prince Obolensky, the Oxford and international three-quarter, arouses some expecta- tions. And fulfils them. It forms part of a • volume by Oxford men called Be Still and Know (Michael Joseph, 7s. 6d.), a title which suggests—quote erroneously—a Group -Movement origin. Prince Obolensky does indeed mention that, having been awarded his Rugby Blue lie was duly " assailed " by members of the Group. He resisted their appeal, but observes broadmindedly that the existence of the movement " shows that at least . some people are thinking about religion and are attempting to make Christianity a practical force in the present world." Prince Obolensky's own confession of faith is of considerable interest. " To me," he says, " life without God would be pointless, and so I have faith in Him." But it is not an orthodox faith, though actually in form it is Orthodox, for the Prince -was brought up in the Greek Orthodox Church and " what has been good enough for ten 'centuries of Obolenskys is still good enough for me." I have no room here to quote further from the Prince's article ; but all of it is well worth reading—and would be even if their author had never seen a football.
The Lord Chief Justice and two of his brethren in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday gave a ruling on the question, of interest to all who take train journeys, whether a man is guilty of an offence who sells the return half of a cheap, return-ticket. As might be expected, they decided that he is, and it is rather surprising that the stipendiary magistrate before whom the case came in the first instance. declined to convict. Whether the ruling covers the case: of the man who gives away the return half is less clear ; presumably it does. But what about the members of n family who journey to the same destination, three by car and two by train (on week-end tickets) ? If they change places; and one of the car-travellers goes home on one of the train-travellers' return-half is that an offence (a) against law (b) against morals ?
* * * * In confirmation of what Dr. Mallon said in The Spectator last week regarding the harrying of Jewish children in the East End, here is a case which happens to have conic under my personal notice in the last few days. A Jewish child of about twelve had a stone thrown at her in an East'End street. She will lose (or may by this time have lost) an eye in consequence. The boys who (or, rather, one of whom) threw the stone were caught and asked why they did it. They admitted they had never seen the child before, but said someone had given them money to " go for " Jewish children. The parents, who said that all Jews in the neighbourhood had to keep their children in after dark, refused flatly to press the matter further for fear of consequences.
There is an unfortunate ring about Sir Philip Chet- wcde's reference at the Allenby memorial meeting on Tuesday to " the false gods that now lay broken on the floor of the great peace palace at Geneva," for the one memory of Lord Allenby that will remain, in addition to his Palestine campaign and his High Commissionership in Egypt, is the Rectorial Address he gave at Edinburgh last April, the whole burden of which was a defence of internationalism—defined as generous sympathy for our fellow-men. The gods of Geneva may be broken, but Allenby of all men would never have borne to hear
Previous page
