RSS

Contact us

Thursday 4 December 2008

Goodbye to the young master

Farewell to a noble figure in Spectator history

Ian Gilmour, the former Spectator editor, who died last week

Gilmour had no political ambitions when he bought the magazine — he did not become an MP until 1962 — but it did not take him long to establish his radical credentials. The execution of Ruth Ellis in 1955 (the last woman to be hanged in Britain) provided the occasion for Gilmour to write a devastating leader, castigating the Home Secretary for failing to exercise his prerogative of mercy and calling for capital punishment, which in his view was ‘absolutely indefensible’, to be abolished. Letters of protest poured in, subscriptions were cancelled. Later that same year, Gilmour wrote a signed article on the conviction and imprisonment of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and two others for homosexual offences. In commenting on ‘the many repellent aspects of this case’ he did not spare the Director of Public Prosecutions; and two years later gave The Spectator’s support to the proposals of the Wolfenden committee. The magazine had the distinction of being dubbed ‘The Bugger’s Bugle’ by the fiery Presbyterian columnist of the Sunday Express, John Gordon.

At a time when much of the national press was reactionary or supine, and television had little influence, the political weeklies were more prominent. Gilmour’s Spectator was a powerful motor for social reform, leading Michael Foot to comment in 1958 that ‘no journal in Britain has established a higher reputation than The Spectator for the persistent advocacy of a humane administration of the law or the reform of inhumane laws’. Whether ridiculing the Lord Chamberlain’s theatre censorship, or criticising the judiciary, ‘the young master’, as he was often called in the office, did not hesitate to stand up to authority.

It was unfortunate that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, whose enthusiasm for hanging insane murderers had been deplored by The Spectator, should choose to preside over a libel action brought against the magazine in 1957. An article on a conference of the Italian Socialist party in Venice had commented on the drinking habits of three English delegates — Aneurin Bevan, Richard Crossman and Morgan Phillips — and ‘their capacity to fill themselves like tanks with whisky and coffee’. This would hardly be considered defamatory today — they were not actually accused of being drunk — but all three, then leading Labour party figures, decided to sue.

Having satisfied himself that the article was accurate, Gilmour resolved to fight the case in court if necessary, taking the reasonable view that, when it came to the point, the plaintiffs would not want to commit perjury for money. But that was exactly what they did want to do. Years later, Crossman admitted in his posthumously published Diaries that they were all drunk and had shamelessly lied under oath. With the help of a brilliant advocate (Gilbert Beyfus) who did not shrink from bending the rules, a slippery solicitor (Arnold Goodman), and a blatantly biased judge, it was no surprise that the distinguished Labour politicians won the case, which was described by Bernard Levin as ‘one of the greatest scandals since the war’.

More articles from: Simon Courtauld | this section

Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink  |   Comment

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved