Already a subscriber? Log in
Andrew Sim
Blackheath, London SE3
Churchill and the Jews
Sir: In his piece ‘Churchill was “too fond of the Jews”’ (17 March), Sir Martin Gilbert suggests that Winston Churchill should not be held responsible for the article ‘How the Jews Can Combat Persecution’, which was commissioned from him in 1937 by the US magazine Liberty and to which I draw attention in my book, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness. Sir Martin and I both agree that the article was drafted by a ghost-writer, Adam Marshall Diston.
It has been reported in some parts of the media that Churchill rejected Diston’s draft because he did not agree with it. I note that Sir Martin does not make that claim in his article, but rather observes that Churchill’s piece ‘was twice offered for publication’. It would seem that the grounds of debate have narrowed considerably. On the one hand, there is the contention that although Churchill tried to get the article published, he was not answerable for its contents because his efforts to do so were unsuccessful. On the other is my argument that Churchill’s attempts to get it into print under his own name demonstrate that in 1937 (though not in 1940, when the question arose again) he was happy to endorse the sentiments it contained.
Richard Toye
Homerton College, Cambridge
Bucking the Convention
Sir: As Charles Moore points out, the government’s plans to reform the House of Lords seem as uncertain as ever (The Spectator’s Notes, 17 March). But one point seems to have escaped the commentators: I believe very firmly that the agreement which led to the Salisbury Convention back in 1945 became nothing less than a constitutional settlement between the two Houses. The new Labour government, with its huge majority (and the Parliament Act provisions of 1911), could easily have removed the hereditary peers or even abolished the House of Lords altogether. It chose not to do so in return for the famous undertaking from Viscount Cranborne that the Lords would not seek to prevent the enactment in principle of Bills implementing manifesto commitments.
I am quite certain that the 1999 House of Lords Act was indeed a departure from previous solemn and, I would say, binding undertakings. It therefore follows that the Salisbury Convention is now a dead letter. There may be other arguments in favour of — generally speaking — allowing the will of the House of Commons to prevail, but a new convention is now urgently needed. No one is bound by the old one.
Rt Hon. Lord Trefgarne PC
House of Lords, SW1
League of cat and mice
Sir: It would appear that the relationship between cats and mice is more symbiotic than Paul Johnson suggests (And another thing, 17 March). We never had mice until we got our cat. He brings them in through the catflap alive and undamaged. They are then released by the cat for a merry chase around the furniture, my wife and myself until they find safe refuge. Then they take up residence, once in the washing machine, but mostly in the cupboard containing the dried catfood, where they live in comfort. Once established, they are totally ignored by the cat.
David Mitchell
Bromelys, Llangors, Brecon
Give him enough Roper…
Sir: Emma Tennant’s letter on 17 March reminds me of a further retort by my uncle, John Scott, to Hugh Trevor-Roper. This occurred on the hunting field, when John greeted the professor with, ‘Morning, Roper.’ Again the reply was, ‘My name is Trevor-Roper,’ to which John replied, ‘My dear fellow, I don’t know you nearly well enough to call you Trevor!’
Charles Bell
Evanton, Ross-shire
Also in Society
Also by The Spectator
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in