Budds Farm, Wittersham, Kent.—Thanks him for his congratulations (see 2/175). The result of the election justified his decision (to serve in the National Government).
Royal Courts of Justice.—It has been falsely alleged in the Commons that parties attended by troops and ‘persons ill-disposed to this country’ have been held at a house leased by Simon Marks. Discusses what should be done in response to what in his view is ‘a most discreditable piece of anti-semitism’.
—————
Transcript
Royal Courts of Justice, London
14th November, 1941.
Dear Pethick,
I tried to get you on the telephone today, but I hear that you have gone down to the country, and as I am about to do likewise there is not much chance of having a talk before Monday.
Today, Simon Marks, who is the head of Marks & Spencer, and, as you know, a Jew, came to see me. He is naturally deeply concerned about the Questions which were asked and reported in Tuesday’s Hansard concerning activities at Foliejon Park, of which he is the lessee. Sir George Broadbridge asked Margesson whether his attention had been called to the nature of the parties that had been taking place at Foliejon Park and whether he would put the place out of bounds for the troops. Smithers added a question suggesting that information available to the enemy might result from these parties. The innuendo was obvious, namely, that there had been orgies of a discreditable nature at which persons ill disposed to this country had got together.
My wife and I stayed for one weekend with Simon Marks in the early summer. Besides ourselves, the only other guest staying in the house was Masaryk, the Foreign Secretary of Czechoslovakia. A Canadian officer who was engaged to Marks’ girl came over for the day. This was the only “troops” I saw.
Marks came to see me today in a state of great distress. He has seen David Margesson who tells him he is satisfied that there is no truth whatever in the allegations and that he (David Margesson) intends to give a very stiff answer to these questions in the early part of next week.
It seems to me that the whole thing is a most discreditable piece of anti-semitism. I am quite confident that Marks is as loyal as you and I are. He has given most generously to various charities in which my wife is interested and is chairman of a Regional Board for production under the Ministry of Labour. I do not know what information Broadbridge and Smithers had, but it seems pretty obvious that they cannot have taken the least steps to check whatever their information may have been. Parliamentary privilege carries great responsibilities, and a cruel injustice may obviously be done by questions such as these. I write to you because you are a wise old bird, and because I know you hate anti-semitism as much as I do. It occurred to me there might be a good opportunity for some supplementary question, and this of course I cannot as a Member of the Government put. Like you, I loathe injustice, and I feel a grievance† injustice has been done to Simon Marks by these questions and I would dearly like to see some steps taken to right the wrong. David Margesson has told Marks, as I have said, that his answer will be stiff, but I do think that Broadbridge and Smithers deserve to have their noses rubbed in it. If you would be good enough to advise me what I can do, I would be so grateful. Of course if you want to see Simon Marks this could easily be arranged. He has assured me that there have been no parties at all. He can think of no foreigner except Masaryk who has ever visited him.
On one occasion he thinks that the commanding officer and one other officer from the Canadian Regiment came over with the girl’s fiancé, but this was the largest number of troops that have ever been present. I must confess that this combination of anti-semitism and injustice just makes my blood boil, and for that very reason I want some wiser head than my own to tell me what I can do about it.
Since these questions were on the Paper, Marks tells me his life has been a hell: various reporters have been ringing up to ask if they can come to the house and search for secret passages, wireless and the like. I should gather from the other questions put by Sir George Broadbridge on the same day that he is a thoroughly undesirable sort of person.
I will try to get in touch with you on Monday about it.
Ever yours,
Wm. A Jowitt
The Rt. Hon. F. W. Pethick-Lawrence, M.P.,
Fourways,
Gomshall,
Nr. Guildford,
Surrey.
—————
† Sic.
Office of the Paymaster General.—Discusses E. H. Carr’s book Conditions of Peace (see 2/176). Is leaving tonight to inspect forestry in Scotland. Encloses a copy of a letter he has written to Robert Hudson (2/169).
Farm-owners like himself, who cannot supervise their farms themselves owing to the war, run the risk of becoming criminally liable if their bailiff receives more feed than is authorised. Asks for his advice, and suggests a change to the law.
House of Lords.—‘You’ve got a tremendous task [as Secretary of State for India]—but I know you’ll do it supremely well. I’m delighted to think that you’ll be one of us here.’
House of Lords.—Asks whether he should contradict Paget’s statement in the Commons that he (Jowitt) had made no attempt to see the compromise clause about hanging through the Lords.
House of Lords.—Thanks him for his advice, observing that both the motions (on hanging) had placed him on a ‘sticky wicket’.
House of Lords.—Expresses sympathy on the death of Lady Pethick-Lawrence.
121 Ashley Gardens, S.W.1.—Speculates on the result of the forthcoming general election.
Congratulates him on his election victory. The size of his majority shows how few people objected to his action (in agreeing to serve in the National Government).
Recommends E. H. Carr’s book Conditions of Peace.
35 Upper Brook Street, W.1.—She and her husband cannot dine with him on Wednesday.
West Lodge, Bradfield St George, Suffolk.—Thanks him for his letter of sympathy, and reflects on her husband’s last days. Has broken her wrist.