SIR JOHN SIMON

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 6, 7 July 1938, Page 31

SIR JOHN SIMON

A READY IMPROVISER

BUT MEMORISES SPEECHES

Some years before the World War, when I was a young man in London, I was taken to the House of Commons by a distinguished editor, and introduced to Sir John Simon >: writes Sisley Huddleston in the "Christian Science Monitor." He had then been appointed to high office under the Liberal Government, although he himself was remarkably young. We talked in the lobbies amid the coming and going of excited politicians, and our conversation was interrupted by repeated calls for the presence in the House of the rising lawyer from his chief. That was the beginning of a certain association of nearly thirty years. For I went to edit a political paper in the constituency of Sir John Simon. It was a queer experience, of which I could write much. But the immediate, point is that, by virtue of my relation to the Member of Parliament, I accbm-1 panied him on his rounds at election! time, and sometimes spoke on the same platform. There is, of all the men with whom I have come into contact, no readier speaker, no better improviser, than Sir John; but it was nevertheless his custom to have typed and to memorise the salient paragraphs of his utterances. A LETTERrPERFECt ACTOR. I have often sat, with a sheet of paper in my hand, following the words of the orator; and have marvelled to find that he changed not a syllable in the delivery. He was as letter-perfect as an actor. Yet he could, if he chose, fashion the most polished sentences on his feet; and it was to me a lesson, which I never forgot, of the desirability, however well equipped by nature one may be for any emergency, to leave nothing important to chance. He left the Government because he.| dissented from its project of; conscription during the World War, but he joined the Royal Air Force . himself' and went to France. It is a pity that his keen intelligence was not. employed in the peacemaking; he would assuredly have prevented some of, the \ worst blunders. - „ When he became Foreign Secretary in the present British National '.Govern-! ment he had to handle the most difficult problems. There was, for example, j Manchuria. Should the League have i acted vigorously or not? That de-'j pends on one's conception of the League, and one's ; appreciation of the possible consequences, and that depends .n one's knowledge, of foreign affairs which interlock. Sir John came to a luncheon over which I presided at Geneva, and although I made it clear to him that it might be inadvisable, considering the mixed .company, to be too frank, -even in a so-called "confidential" gathering, he laid his cards on the table with breath-taking completeness. ART OR SIMPLICITY. I have never quite decided whether he was artlessly trustful, or whether he was exceedingly artful on this occasion, well aware that his views would be spread abroad without compromising him', or his Government, too much, since there could be no direct publication. As he often, in his interviews with newspapermen, appealed to me for a sort of corroboratiqh, . especially in French matters, I took the liberty one day of being perfectly candid. The Council of the League had condemned Germany for re-arming in violation of the Versailles Treaty, though everybody else was re-arming. "Did you

observe, Sir John," I said, "how the Council was composed? The Chairman was the delegate of Turkey which immediately tore up the Treaty of Sevres altogether, and was rewarded with a i new Treaty at Lausanne. Then there was the delegate of Russia, which broke its war pledge to the Allies and afterwards repudiated the Treaty of. Brest-Litovsk with Germany. Poland was represented and Poland has just publicly denounced its Minorities Treaty., , ' ALL. TREATY BREAKERS. ! "As for the countries which have j unilaterally set aside their "debts contracts with the United States! I mean, all the members of the, Council have i torn up treaties —if it. js only their i obligation in the Covenant to reduce armaments —and therefore there is' surely some irony in their sitting in judgment on Germany." Sir John reflected before he replied: "But did. you not observe that in my speech I said that our criticisms must also apply"'to- ourselves? If I had not, then certainly, we could have been described as sanctimonious humbugs!" He is undoubtedly one of the most intellectual of the;' British politicians. He takes pains to understand. Long ago he could, had he chosen, have gone to the Woolsack —become' the Lord Chancellor of England. But he declined.