In
1819 a group of men involved in the textile industry in Manchester
held regular meetings in the home of John Potter.
The men all shared the same passion for political reform. The group
included Potter and his two sons, Thomas and Richard, John
Shuttleworth, John Edward Taylor, Archibald
Prentice, Joseph Brotherton, Absalom
Watkin and William Cowdray. The group
strongly objected to a parliamentary system that denied such important
industrial cities such as Manchester,
Leeds and Birmingham,
representation in the House of Commons.
A member of this group, William Cowdray,
owned the Manchester Gazette, and
this provided a forum to express their views. John
Edward Taylor and Archibald Prentice
in particular were regular contributors to the newspaper.
Most of the men in the Potter group held Nonconformist
religious views. This was not unusual in Manchester
as Nonconformists outnumbered Anglicans by two to one. Potter's group
was particularly concerned about the close link between the government
and the Anglican Church, and feared that
in future schools would be used to indoctrinate children. Members
of the group were all supporters of Joseph
Lancaster and his Nonconformist schools movement.
On occasions, this group of middle-class liberals, worked with working-class
radicals in Manchester in their campaign
for parliamentary reform and the repeal of the Corn
Laws. Although they believed in the principles and objectives
of people like John Knight, Joseph
Johnson, James Wroe, Samuel
Bamford, John Saxton, George
Swift and Joseph Healey, they did not
approve of the methods that working-class radicals were using to obtain
the vote.
In 1818, John Knight, James
Wroe and John Saxton started the radical
newspaper, the Manchester Observer.
Within twelve months the Manchester Observer
was selling 4,000 copies a week. Although it started as a local paper,
by 1819 it was sold in most of the large towns and cities in Britain.
Henry Hunt called the Manchester
Observer "the only newspaper in England that I know,
fairly and honestly devoted to such reform as would give the people
their whole rights."
In March 1819, working-class radicals in Britain formed the Patriotic
Union Society. Joseph Johnson was appointed
secretary of the organisation and James Wroe
became treasurer. The main objective of the Society was to obtain
parliamentary reform and during the summer of 1819 it decided to invite
Major John Cartwright and Henry
Orator Hunt to speak at a public meeting in Manchester.
The men were told that this was to be "a meeting of the county
of Lancashire, than of Manchester alone. I think by good management
the largest assembly may be procured that was ever seen in this country."
Cartwright was unable to attend but Hunt agreed and the meeting was
arranged to take place at St. Peter's Field
on 16th August.
Middle-class liberals, such as John Edward
Taylor and Archibald Prentice, had
doubts about the wisdom of holding this meeting, but like other supporters
of parliamentary reform, they attended
in an effort to show the government how strongly the people of Manchester
felt about this issue. Both John Edward Taylor
and Archibald Prentice went home early
and missed the soldiers attacking the crowd.
When Taylor and Prentice heard the news they quickly returned to St.
Peter's Field and began interviewing eyewitnesses. They discovered
that John Tyas of The
Times, the only reporter from a national newspaper at the
meeting, had been arrested and imprisoned. Taylor and Prentice feared
that this was an attempt by the government to suppress news of the
event. The next edition of the Manchester
Gazette was not due out to Saturday. Taylor and Prentice decided
to send their reports to London newspapers.
Thomas Barnes, editor of The Times,
had a policy of not naming the writers of the articles that appeared
in his newspaper, however, it is believed that the piece that appeared
on Wednesday 18th August, was written by John
Edward Taylor. It was definitely very similar to the account that
appeared in the Saturday edition of the Manchester
Gazette. Taylor described what had taken place as the St.
Peter's Field Tragedy. However, the Manchester
Observer called it the Peterloo Massacre
and this eventually became the accepted term for the attack on the
crowd.
The government
responded to the events at St. Peter's Field by passing the Six
Acts. Middle-class liberals like Taylor, Prentice and Shuttleworth
was radicalized by these events. Disillusioned with the Manchester
Gazette, the group decided to start their own newspaper. Eventually
eleven men, all of them involved in the textile industry, raised £1,050
for the venture.
John Edward Taylor was chosen as editor and Jeremiah Garnett was
recruited as a printer and reporter. Garnett had worked for the Tory
newspaper, Manchester Chronicle
and had been their reporter at the Peterloo
Massacre. Although Garnett had his reporter's notebook confiscated
by a special constable, he was still able to write a full description
of what happened. Charles Wheeler, disapproved
of Garnett's account and refused to print his article. Garnett resigned
in protest and had been working in Huddersfield until Taylor brought
him back to Manchester. Although no
other journalists were to be employed on the newspaper, Archibald
Prentice and John Shuttleworth agreed
to supply weekly articles.
Taylor and his partners purchased a Stanhope Press that printed 200
sheets an hour. Taylor was aware that national newspapers were using
a Koenig Steam Press that printed 1,000 sheets an hour. However, it
would be seven years before the group could afford to buy one of these
machines.
It was decided to call the newspaper the Manchester Guardian.
A prospectus was published which explained the aims and objectives
of the proposed newspaper. It included the passage: "It will
zealously enforce the principles of civil and religious Liberty, it
will warmly advocate the cause of Reform; it will endeavour to assist
in the diffusion of just principles of Political Economy."
The first four-page edition appeared on Saturday 5th May, 1821 and
cost 7d. Of this sum, 4d was a tax imposed by the government. The
Manchester Guardian, like other newspapers at the time, also
had to pay a duty of 3d a lb on paper and three shillings and sixpence
on every advertisement that was included. These taxes severely restricted
the number of people who could afford to buy newspapers. The Manchester
Guardian, like all newspapers based outside of London,
could only afford to publish once a week.
In the first couple of years the weekly circulation of the Manchester
Guardian hovered around a 1,000 copies. Readership was much higher
than this with a large number being purchased by newsrooms (a place
where people could go and read a selection of newspapers). The account
books of John Edward Taylor show that newsrooms
as far away as Glasgow, Hull
and Exeter purchased the newspaper.
When the
Manchester Guardian was first published in 1821, Manchester
had six other weekly newspapers. Four were published on Saturday and
two on Tuesday. The Manchester Mercury,
Chronicle, Exchange
Herald and the British Volunteer supported the Tories,
whereas the Manchester Gazette
was in favour of moderate reform. The final paper, the Manchester
Observer, promoted radicalism and with a circulation of 4,000,
was easily the best-selling newspaper in Manchester. However, the
Manchester Observer had very few
advertisers and was constantly being sued for libel. Several of their
journalists, including John Wroe and John
Saxton had been sent to prison for articles they had written criticizing
the government.
With the arrival of the Manchester Guardian, the
Manchester Observer decided to cease publication. In its last
edition the editor wrote: "I would respectfully suggest that
the Manchester Guardian, combining principles of complete independence,
and zealous attachment to the cause of reform, with active and spirited
management, is a journal in every way worthy of your confidence and
support."
Sales of the Manchester Guardian continued to grow. By 1823
it reached 2,000 and two years later it was over 3,000. Taylor was
helped by Manchester's fast growing population. This not only provided
more potential readers, but emphasized Taylor's point that Manchester
needed to be represented in Parliament.
The Manchester
Guardian's first offices at 29 Market Street
Although
John Edward Taylor was successful in using
the Manchester Guardian to gain more supporters for his political
views, he had upset some old friends in the process. Archibald
Prentice, Thomas Potter and John
Shuttleworth all accused him of moving to the right. They complained
when the Manchester Guardian refused to support the campaign
by John Hobhouse and Michael
Sadler to reduce child labour in the textile industry. Taylor's
view was that "though child labour is evil, it is better than
starvation". He also refused to support Richard
Oastler and the Ten Hour Movement. Taylor argued that this proposed
legislation would cause "the gradual destruction of the cotton
industry".
Taylor's views on parliamentary reform also became more conservative.
John Edward Taylor no longer believed in
universal suffrage and now argued that "the qualification to
vote ought to be low enough to put it fairly within the power of members
of the labouring classes by careful, steady and preserving industry
to possess themselves of it, yet not so low as to give anything like
a preponderating influence to the mere populace. The right of representation
is not an inherent or abstract right, but the mere creation of an
advanced condition of society."
Taylor's old friend, Archibald Prentice,
became his strongest critic and accused him of betraying the reformers.
In 1824 William Cowdray's widow told Prentice she was willing to sell
the Manchester Gazette for £1,600.
With the financial help of John Shuttleworth,
Thomas Potter and Richard
Potter, Archibald Prentice purchased
the Manchester Gazette and moved
it to the left of the Manchester Guardian.
Without articles written by people like John
Shuttleworth and Archibald Prentice,
the Manchester Guardian moved further to the right. In 1826
the Manchester Guardian gave its support to Tory
politicians such as George Canning and
William Huskisson. Although John
Edward Taylor regretted the Tories opposition to parliamentary
reform and Catholic Emancipation, he
thought that it was better to support liberal Tories with power than
to campaign for Whig reformers.
In 1831 radicals were appalled when a Manchester Guardian reporter,
John Harland, gave evidence about what speakers had said at a parliamentary
reform meeting. As a result of John Harland's testimony, several radicals
were sent to prison for sedition. Instead of punishing Harland, Taylor
made him a partner in the business.
The newspaper's
move to the right did not damage circulation. By the 1830s John
Edward Taylor was selling over 3,000 copies a week. What is more,
the Manchester Guardian was Britain's third most successful
provincial newspaper.
The government's decision in 1836 to reduce the tax on newspapers
also helped sales. Taylor was able to cut the price to 4d while increasing
the size of the newspaper. The paper also became a bi-weekly. In 1837
the Wednesday edition sold over 4,100 whereas on Saturday it was close
to 6,000 copies.
After the death of John Edward Taylor in
January 1844, Jeremiah Garnett became the new editor of the Manchester
Guardian. Circulation continued to rise and by 1850 reached 9,110.
Garnett was a supporter of the Liberal Party.
He constantly defended the cause of individual liberty and campaigned
for an increase in religious freedom. This included advocating equal
rights for unpopular minorities such as Roman
Catholics. Garnett's Manchester Guardian also gave its
support to the 1857 Divorce Bill.
After the tax on newspapers was finally removed in 1855, the Manchester
Guardian changed from being a bi-weekly to a daily newspaper.
Two years later Garnett reduced the price to a penny.
Jeremiah Garnett retired in 1861 and was replaced by John Taylor,
the son of John Edward Taylor, the first
editor of the Manchester Guardian. Taylor revived the early
radicalism of the founders of the newspaper. As well as supporting
the Parliamentary Reform Act (1867)
and the Secret Ballot Act
(1872) the Manchester Guardian also began to carry out
in-depth investigations into social problems.
Taylor ran the London office and the actual
editing was done by a group of writers in Manchester:
Robert Dowman, H. M. Acton and J. M. Maclean. Taylor decided that
he needed to appoint an editor who worked with the writers. His choice
was his cousin, Charles Prestwich Scott.
It was agreed that Scott should receive a salary of £400 a year
and one-tenth of the profits.
Charles Prestwich Scott was an advocate
of parliamentary reform. As editor
he gave strong support to Jacob Bright's Bill for Women's
Suffrage. Scott also joined Elizabeth Butler
in her campaign against the Contagious Diseases
Act.
Taylor did not share Scott's views on female suffrage
and ordered him not to use the Manchester Guardian to increase
the franchise. On 29th April, 1892, Taylor wrote to Scott again on
this issue: "Your article yesterday for the Female Suffrage Bill
was adroitly done, and your display of the cloven foot most discreetly
managed; still it was quite visible. I must ask you not to advocate
this measure whilst I live."
Although
Scott was now receiving 25% of the profits of the Manchester Guardian,
Taylor still controlled 75% of the company and had the power to over-rule
his editor. Scott no longer received a salary but he did well from
this agreement as the profits during this period ranged from £12,000
to £24,000 a year.
In the 1895 General Election, Scott stood
as the Liberal Party candidate for North-East
Manchester. He won with a majority of 667 and once in the House
of Commons identified himself with the left-wing of the party.
In Parliament Scott advocated women's suffrage
and reform of the House of Lords.
In 1899 Scott strongly opposed the Boer War.
This created a great deal of public hostility and both Scott's house
and the Manchester Guardian building had to be given police
protection. Sales of the newspaper also dropped during this period.
However, despite holding unpopular views on the war, Scott managed
to regain his seat in the 1900 General Election.
With the help of his able lieutenants, C.
E. Montague and L. T. Hobhouse, Scott
continued to edit the newspaper during his period in Parliament.
When John Taylor died in October 1905, he left instructions in his
will that C. P. Scott could buy the Manchester
Guardian for £10,000. The trustees were unwilling to obey
these demands and eventually Scott had to raise £242,000 to buy
the newspaper. This was a high price considering the newspaper only
made a profit of £1,200 in 1905.
Scott initially opposed Britain's involvement in the First
World War. Scott supported his friends, John
Burns, John Morley and Charles
Trevelyan, when they resigned from the government over this issue.
However, he refused to join anti-war organizations such as the Union
of Democratic Control (UDC). As he wrote at the time: "I
am strongly of the opinion that the war ought not to have taken place
and that we ought not to have become parties to it, but once in it
the whole future of our nation is at stake and we have no choice but
do the utmost we can to secure success."
During the summer of 1914 most of the newspapaper's writers,
including C. E. Montague, Leonard
Hobhouse, Herbert Sidebottom, Henry
Nevinson, and J. A. Hobson called for
Britain to remain neutral in the growing conflict in Europe. However,
once war was declared, most gave their support to the government.
J.
A. Hobson remained opposed to Britain's involvement and joined
the and anti-war organisation, the Union of Democratic
Control (UDC). Hobson served on the UDC's executive council and
wrote the book Towards International Government (1914) which
advocated the formation of a world body to prevent wars.
C.
E. Montague, although forty-seven with a wife and seven children,
volunteered to join the British Army.
Grey since his early twenties, Montague died his hair in an attempt
to persuade the army to take him. On 23rd December, 1914, the Royal
Fusiliers accepted him and he joined the Sportsman's Battalion.
Montague was later promoted to the rank of second lieutenant and transferred
to Military Intelligence. For the next two years he had the task of
writing propaganda for the British Army
and censoring articles written by the five authorized English journalists
on the Western Front (Perry
Robinson, Philip Gibbs, Percival
Phillips, Herbert Russell and Bleach
Thomas). Howard Spring, another of the
newspaper's writers, also worked for the Military Intelligence in
France.
Henry Nevinson, the newspaper's main war
reporter, was highly critical of the tactics used by the British
Army but was unable to get this view past the censors. C.
P. Scott and Leonard Hobhouse opposed
conscription introduced in 1916
and the following year supported attempts made by Arthur
Henderson to secure a negotiated peace.
Although
Scott was critical of the way David Lloyd George
handled the peace negotiations at Versailles,
he supported him in his struggle with Herbert
Asquith. After the Conservative
victory in the 1922 General Election, Scott
worked hard to unite the Liberal Party.
However, his loyal support of Lloyd George made this an impossible
task.
C.
E. Montague,
who was married to C. P. Scott's only daughter, Madeline, died in
June, 1929. He had worked for the Manchester Guardian for over
thirty-five years. The following month, Scott, after fifty-seven years
as editor, decided to retire. Scott had initially expected his eldest
son, Laurence Scott, to succeed him as editor. However, while involved
in charity work in the Ancoats slums, he caught tuberculosis
and died. It was therefore, Edward Scott, the youngest son, who took
over from his father. Although officially retired, C.
P. Scott kept a close watch over the newspaper until his death
on 1st January, 1932.
(1)
C. P. Scott, wrote to his brother about
working on the Manchester Guardian (April, 1871)
With the other people in the office I am on a very pleasant and friendly
footing. Acton takes three leaders a week, Couper one, and there is
an odd leader (we have two long ones on Wednesday) which may fall
to the lot of any one of us. My hours are pretty much as follows -
I get up at 7.30, breakfast, read the Guardian thoroughly and
walk into town, arriving soon after ten o'clock. I work on all day
and walk back for dinner about six o'clock. Read and write in the
evening and go to bed soon after ten.
(2)
In her book, Unfinished Adventure Evelyn
Sharp explained how she began work for the Manchester Guardian
in 1903.
I owed to H. W. Nevinson the introduction which put me in touch with
Mr. R. H. Gretton, the London editor of the Manchester Guardian;
and thus began my long connection with that paper. Believing as I
do that the late C. P. Scott was the greatest of editors and that
he made the Guardian the greatest of newspapers, I have always
felt it a source of both pride and of wonder that, although not on
the staff, I have continued, now for nearly thirty years, to be a
contributor to its columns.
(3)
C. P. Scott, Manchester Guardian
(9th July, 1912)
We do not know whether the present House of Commons will be prepared
to do justice to women. A few months ago there can be little doubt
that it would, and nothing that has since happened supplies any adequate
reason for a change of purpose. The follies and excesses of a small
section of women, deeply resented and regretted by the vast majority
of women, ought not to be allowed to weigh in the balance against
a claim which has been admitted to be just.
(4)
Editorial in The Manchester Guardian (27th July, 1914)
On the whole, English newspapers have avoided taking sides in the
quarrel. All with, we think, only with one exception (the Morning
Post) have recognised the extreme provocation that Austria has
received, and her right to take the strongest measures to secure the
punishment of all concerned in the assassination of the Crown Prince.
(5)
Editorial in The Manchester Guardian (30th July, 1914)
If Russia makes a general war out of a local war it will be a crime
against Europe. If we, who might remain neutral, rush into the war
or let our attitude remain doubtful, it will be both a crime and an
act of supreme and gratuitous folly.
(6)
C. P. Scott, editor of the Manchester
Guardian, wrote a letter to Charles
Trevelyan suggesting that he should not publish a pamphlet he
had written that raised doubts about the reported atrocities being
committed by the Germans in Belgium (5th September, 1914)
It would be expedient to hold back the pamphlet. The war is at
present going badly against us and any day may bring more serious
news. I suppose that as soon as the Germans have time to turn their
attention to us we may expect to see their big guns mounted on the
other side of the Channel and their Zeppelins flying over Dover and
perhaps London. People will be wholly impatient of any sort of criticism
of policy at such a time and I am afraid that premature action now
might destroy any hope of usefulness for your organisation (Union
of Democratic Control) later. I saw Angell and Ramsay MacDonald yesterday
afternoon and found that they had come to the same conclusion.
(7)
Howard Spring joined the Manchester Guardian
in 1915. He wrote about it in his autobiography In The Meantime
(1942)
The Chief Reporter of the Manchester Guardian, when I joined the
staff, was William Haslam Mills. Like the deputy-chief,
George Leach, Mills was a barrister-at-law. He and Leach, after they
had been "called", put up a joint brass plate on some obscure
office door in Manchester, but neither made progress in the law. It
was Mills who made my appointment, and it was characteristic of him
that his decision was affected by two points which might not have
appealed to other men. Necessarily, when applying for the job, I submitted
examples of my work. I made them up on foolscap sheets into three
folders labelled "Descriptive Reports", "Theatre Criticisms",
"Book Reviews". Mills told me afterwards that the neatness
of the folders first attracted him, and that he was finally decided
by a sentence or two in a review of T. H. S.
Escott's book on Trollope.
This was
characteristic of the man. He himself was the very picture of neatness.
Everything about him was neat. He wrote a beautiful firm neat hand,
and so disliked the look of even one erasure that I have seen him
more than once rewrite a whole page of copy because he had altered
a word on the last line. His clothes were neat, though worn with an
air. He always carried a malacca cane, always wore a bow tie or a
stock, and, in winter, always had a muffler twisted about his neck
with an effect both careless and considered. He was strikingly good-looking
in a histrionic way.
(8)
C. P. Scott, letter to Arthur
Balfour about the threaten introduction of military
conscription (2nd January, 1916)
You know that I was honestly willing to accept compulsory
military service, provided that the voluntary system had first been
tried out, and had failed to supply the men needed and who could still
be spared from industry, and were numerically worth troubling about.
Those, I think, are not unreasonable conditions, and I thought that
in the conversation I had with you last September you agreed with
them. I cannot feel that they had been fulfilled, and I do feel very
strongly that compulsion is now being forced upon us without proof
shown of its necessity, and I resent this the more deeply because
it seems to me in the nature of a breach of faith with those who,
like myself - there are plenty of them - were prepared to make great
sacrifices of feeling and conviction in order to maintain the national
unity and secure every condition needed for winning the war.
(9)
Herbert Sidebottom, The Manchester
Guardian (18th July, 1916)
To expose human flesh and blood to the malignity of machine-guns
is not scientific war but the untutored valour of the savage. What
we seem to need for operations of this nature is some kind of armour
which would enable the attack to get to close quarters with the defence
without suffering such heavy losses. The defence is in effect wearing
armour - the armour of a wall of bullets from their machine-guns besides
the wall of masonry. The attack should have armour too, and as in
those close operations the support of heavy artillery is out of the
question the real parallel is not with anything known in field operations
but with street fighting.
(10)
C. P. Scott, recorded in his diary comments
made by David Lloyd George at a private
meeting on 27th December, 1917.
I listened last night, at a dinner given to Philip Gibbs on
his return from the front, to the most impressive and moving description
from him of what the war (on the Western Front) really means, that
I have heard. Even an audience of hardened politicians and journalists
were strongly affected. If people really knew, the war would be stopped
tomorrow. But of course they don't know, and can't know. The correspondents
don't write and the censorship wouldn't pass the truth. What they
do send is not the war, but just a pretty picture of the war with
everybody doing gallant deeds. The thing is horrible and beyond human
nature to bear and I feel I can't go on with this bloody business.
(11)
After the 1922 General Election, the wife
of Herbert Asquith, wrote to C.
P. Scott criticizing his decision to use the Manchester Guardian
to support David Lloyd George in his campaign
to be re-elected (21st November, 1922)
I feel very bitter about Lloyd George; his is the kind of character
I mind most, because I feel his charm and recognize his genius; but
he is full of emotion without heart, brilliant with intellect, and
a gambler without foresight. He has reduced our prestige and stirred
up resentment by his folly - in India, Egypt, Ireland, Poland, Russia,
America, and France.
(12)
Kingsley Martin joined the Manchester
Guardian in 1927. Martin later wrote an account of his editor.
C. P. Scott was a remarkable figure. At the age of eighty he was bent
nearly double, blind in one eye, but more fierce in expression than
any other man I have known. He still rode his bicycle through the
muddy and dangerous streets of Manchester, swaying between the tramlines,
with white hair and whiskers floating in the breeze, equally oblivious
of rain and traffic. Unconsciously, I am sure, he thought that no
one in Manchester would hurt him.
(13)
King George V, letter to C.P.
Scott on his retirement (July, 1929)
For fifty-seven years you have been responsible for the conduct of
a great newspaper, and his Majesty, while regretting your resignation,
congratulates you on an achievement which must surely be unique in
the annals of journalism.
(14)
Kingsley Martin, Father Figures
(1966)
When C. P. Scott died, the innumerable tributes to him all emphasized
his courage and integrity, his humanitarianism and his championship
of unpopular causes. They omitted comment on his remarkable astuteness,
his diplomatic gift, his caution, his capacity for compromise, his
knowledge of when to strike and when to forebear.
He could claim, above all, that he had been right - right about the
Boer War, right about Home Rule, right about Women's Suffrage, right
about the Versailles Peace Treaty, right about a host of other smaller
causes which we have forgotten because they have been won. The influence
of the Manchester Guardian was due to the fact that the causes
it took up were never run as stunts, taken up in the hot mood and
dropped in the cold; they were clearly imagined lines of policy, consistently
and moderately pursued year after year, boldly urged in season, persuasively
advocated out of season, but never abandoned until victory was achieved.
(15)
The New Statesman (January, 1932)
Every newspaper lives by appealing to a particular public. It can
only go ahead of its times if it carries its public with it. Success
in journalism depends on understanding the public. But success is
of two kinds. Northcliffe had a genius for understanding his public
and he used it for making money, not for winning permanent influence.
He became a millionaire because he was his own most appreciative reader;
he instinctively appealed in the most profitable way to the millions
of men and women whose tastes and prejudices were the same as his
own. He lived by flattering. He did not educate or change his public
in any essential; he merely induced it to buy newspapers.
C. P. Scott succeeded in a different way. He had just as much flair,
just as acute an understanding of his public as Northcliffe. But his
relationship to it was a professional, not a commercial relation.
He taught his public to trust his integrity, to rely on the facts
he told them, to respect his judgment, and to listen to his criticism.
He offered his undivided services. I remember his saying that there
was a definite moment in his life, the equivalent of a religious conversion,
when he dedicated his life wholly to his paper and the causes it served.
(16)
In his book Father Figures, Kingsley
Martin, a leader writer on the Manchester Guardian, wrote
about the newspaper in the early 1930s.
This was the trough for the Manchester Guardian. The circulation
was low; it has grown enormously since. It seemed likely to revive
when C. P. Scott retired and Ted Scott became editor. But then C.
P. Scott didn't retire; and Ted Scott was drowned only three months
after his father's death.
I felt a kind of fury when Ted Scott was killed. He had had many ambitions;
he had wanted to go into Parliament. And he admitted to me that his
father had stayed too long. Like his father he was proud of the paper,
but it was not his child. I believe he would have been a great editor.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
