Talk:John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon

Allsebrook in title
Why is "Allsebrook" in the article title? Everything I've read refers to him (pre peerage at least) as (Sir) John Simon. Timrollpickering 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Abolitionist
We are told that Viscountess Simon was an abolitionist. What did she seek to abolish? Ausseagull (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Slavery. I've added some info. --Erp (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

KC
Surely as a senior and successful barrister he would have been a KC? The David Dutton biog would be the place to look, but I don't have it to hand.Paulturtle (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1908 according to http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U242967/SIMON?index=5&results=QuicksearchResults&query=0 Graemp (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000709/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=56&item=biography&PHPSESSID=32f74420ec33 to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=56&item=biography&PHPSESSID=32f74420ec33

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh?
What on earth is this sentence supposed to mean: "Simon served as Foreign Secretary under MacDonald, the highlights of his tenure of office being the repudiation by Germany, under its new chancellor, Adolf Hitler; of the League of Nations; of Disarmament efforts and of the Japanese occupation of Manchuria." Are those semi-colons meant to be commas; i.e. it's talking about "the repudiation by Germany ... of the League of Nations, of Disarmament efforts and of the Japanese occupation of Manchuria"? And in what mad alternative universe can incidents and concerns such as those have been regarded as "highlights" within a British politician's career? Was the intention just to say "Major international issues to arise during his term of office included ..."? I have added a "clarify" tag. GrindtXX (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I should think the term "highlight" was intended ironically.Paulturtle (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracies in Jenkins

 * Roy Jenkins (in his essay in "The Chancellors") states that Simon was an only child; his ODNB article by David Dutton states that he had a sister. I have put the latter in the article and footnoted the former, as it seems more likely to be correct.
 * Roy Jenkins states that both Simon and FE Smith started at Oxford in October 1891, but the ODNB states that Simon graduated in 1896 in Greats - which is normally a four year course, so he should have started in 1892. Lurking at the back of my mind is some memory of how John Campbell in his classic biog of FE Smith, recalls somebody (?Simon) later writing in his memoirs about how he had seen FE Smith make a memorable speech at the Oxford Union, but that this was a classic example of old men forgetting (or in this case "remembering" things that he didn't actually see) as the supposed eyewitness had still been at school in Scotland at the time. Maybe Jenkins relied on Simon's memoirs why imply that he and FE Smith were exact contemporaries, whereas actually they were a year or two apart. (FE was born in 1872 but had spent a year or two at a Liverpool college before getting into Oxford iirc).

I read the Dutton biog of Simon and the Campbell biog of FE Smith about 25 years ago, and have a copy of Simon's memoirs, but they are all boxed up somewhere so I am not in a position to verify.Paulturtle (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Whilst looking for a copy of Campbell on FE Smith, I chanced on a copy of Dutton on Simon. This states that Simon started at Wadham in 1892. I am going with this and am assuming Jenkins to be in error.Paulturtle (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've found a copy of John Campbell on FE Smith (pp.38-41) and tracked this down. In March 1892, at the end of his second term at Oxford, FE Smith made his name with a speech at the Oxford Union in a debate on Local option, mocking the visiting Sir Wilfrid Lawson for throwing his inherited wine cellar down the drain, and remarking that when tortured with thirst in the afterlife he would be denied water for having wasted better liquor. Simon's memoirs contain a supposed eyewitness account of the speech, and Campbell remarks that he had obviously heard and re-told the tale so many times that he had forgotten that he was still at school in Scotland at the time. So, whether or not Simon was an eyewitness on that particular occasion (I dare say FE probably recycled the joke on a number of other occasions, which is how Simon's memories got muddled), he started at Oxford in October 1892.Paulturtle (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Titanic error?
This article says "He headed the public inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912", referenced to "Jenkins 1999, p372". Our article British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic says the inquiry was overseen by Lord Mersey, and lists Simon among "other counsel" as representing the Board of Trade, referenced to the Titanic Inquiry Project. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Have fixed this to match what David Dutton says, as his 1992 biog is the authoritative source on Simon.Paulturtle (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Somewhat to my embarrassment, I've rechecked Roy Jenkins' essay on Simon, and he says that along with Rufus Isaacs Simon "handled" the inquiry on behalf of the government, not "headed". So I suspect this may have been a mistake introduced via my execrable handwriting. Oops.Paulturtle (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

2nd Lady Simon
I have added a "citation needed" tag to the statement that the 2nd Lady Simon "was tactless and by the late 1930s had become a virtual alcoholic": it's probably from Jenkins, but it's somewhat POV, and I think needs a specific citation and perhaps a quotation. Her dedicated article (which is a bit hagiographical) gives no hint of either – but does say that she was "not well-liked by high society", which may provide a hint of context. GrindtXX (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither the ODNB article on Simon, nor that on Dame Kathleen Simon, suggest that she was an alcoholic. BTW, she wasn't the 2nd Lady Simon, as he didn't get his K until 1910, several years after his first wife died. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Like Sir John Anderson, Simon caused embarrassment by marrying "beneath himself". Her drinking problem is in both Jenkins and Dutton, who is the authoritative biographer. (I remember thinking that the article on Kathleen Simon needed some work doing on it, but I'm not volunteering - for a start I think she lied about her age and claimed to be at least a decade younger than she actually was). Normally I'd assume Roy Jenkins was just channelling Dutton but he was politically very well connected as a young man (son of a Labour MP) so Lady Simon's fondness for the bottle may have been common gossip in the 1930s and 1940s. As for the exact terminology used, there may somewhere in the medical or legal professions be a fine distinction between "drinking to excess" and "near alcoholic" but for practical purposes both are consistent with behavioural problems brought on by drinking more than was good for her. On a final note, I notice Neville Chamberlain's phrase about Simon being "much diminished" in 1939, and I wonder whether home problems might have had something to do with this, but that's just my speculation.Paulturtle (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1863/64 is what is given for her birth in the DNB though the entry says some reports give her age as being 8 or 9 years less (which would have made her first marriage in 1885 extremely young). Do you think 1863/64 is wrong?  I agree there are certain vagaries about her early biography; for instance when did her first husband die?    --Erp (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think 1863/4 is probably right and she was about 21 when she married her first husband (maybe that's the age given on her marriage certificate or some other contemporary document, hence the uncertainty about the exact year). She would have been in her mid 50s by the time she married Sir John but had, I think, quietly dropped a decade or so by then.Paulturtle (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the 1863/64 date is due in part to her parents' marriage being on 17 February 1863. Her first marriage was the 21 February 1885 to Thomas F. Manning of county Kerry (both from A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Ireland by Bernard Burke, 1899, page 192).  Oddly enough I think she is the great granddaughter of the artist  Simon Jacques Rochard (DNB and the French wikipedia). The entry says her paternal grandmother is Eugenie Fannie Felicite daughter of Simon Jacques Rochard of London (her grandfather is Henry Robert Harvey).  There is also a marriage announcement (The Morning Post (London, England), Friday, April 18, 1834; Issue 19769) stating that on 17 April 1834 stating that Henry Robert Harvey nephew of the late Lord Brandon married Eugenia Fanny only daughter of Simon J. Rochard, Esq., of Regent-Street (which is where the artist worked).  This is original research so can't be used unless someone reliable has already done so (also it is a bit obscure though does explain why her middle name is Rochard). Simon Jacques Rochard does seem significant enough for his own English wikipedia article (several of his works illustrate other articles) --Erp (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Candidate for Manchester North West c. 1914?
In the article for Manchester North West (UK Parliament constituency) it states that by July 1914 candidates had been selected to fight that seat in the general election expected to be fought later that year or in 1915 (but which was delayed by the Great War) including "John Simon" with a link to this article. There is not reference provided and I am a bit doubtful about it as while he had Manchester connections 1914 he was a senior member of the Liberal Government with a decent majority in his Walthamstow seat so it would be a little odd for him to be trying to win back a seat for his party (although given Bonar Law had done almost the exact same thing in 1910 it is not beyond the realms of possibility). I am wondering therefore if the reference is a mistake (possibly a different John Simon or a garbled reference to the Manchester Liberal politician Ernest Simon). I have questioned this at Talk:Manchester North West (UK Parliament constituency), but thought I should raise also here. If he indeed was planning to move seats in 1914 it should probably be mentioned in this article (it is not currently) if someone has a reliable source for it. Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * He was indeed planning such a move and selected in 1913:


 * Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Friday 15 August 1913 page 7 column 2
 * SIR JOHN SIMON TO FIGHT NORTH-WEST MANCHESTER.
 * FREE TRADERS' NEW CHAMPION.
 * The "Walthamstow District Times" of to-day's date contains the announcement that Sir John Simon, the Solicitor-General, will not contest Walthamstow at the next General Election, but will be the Liberal candidate in North-West Manchester. His relations with the constituency are perfectly amicable, but it is thought that his powerful advocacy of Free Trade principles will be greater value in the typical industrial centre Lancashire.
 * Sir John Allsebrook Simon is a Manchester man. He was born Moss Side in 1873, and is the son of the Rev. Edwin Simon, a distinguished Congregationalist minister. Educated at Fettes College and Wadham College, Oxford, where he was President of the Union in 1896, and Barstow Law Scholar in 1898, he was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1899. He was counsel for the British Government in the Alaska Boundary Arbitration, and became a K.C. in 1908.Entering Parliament in 1906 for Walthamstow, he made so distinc-tive a mark as a debater that in four and a half years he won his way to office, and at the age of 37 became Solicitor-General, being duly knighted.
 * Further honours await him, for when Sir Rufus Isaacs retires to the calmer atmosphere of the judicial bench Sir John is marked outfor the post of Attorney-General. He is one of the six Oxford men who collaborated in "Essays on Liberalism," published in 1897.Lady Simon (nee Miss Ethel Mary Venables) died in 1902, leaving one son and two daughters.
 * The following week the local Liberals confirmed him as their candidate.
 * Another source:
 * Lancashire and the New Liberalism By P. F. Clarke page 308
 * And the Liberals were certainly not prepared to write off Manchester North West. Their new selection committee under Sir Arthur Haworth ought to have been able to find a strong candidate, but it exceeded all expectations by securing a Cabinet Minister, Sir John Simon. Simon was warned of the difficulties by Scott, but after consultation with the Prime Minister he agreed to fight, presumably having some guarantee of the alternative seat which Scott had hinted would be a wise precaution. It was a considerable coup. 'Simon & Mancheter is significant', Aitken at once told Law. 'You must put one of your lieutenants into Manchester. Unless you do so you will lose ground there. This is very important.' And Lord Hugh Cecil's reaction was the same. He called Simon's plan of fighting on Free Trade 'astute & menancing', and suggested as a remedy the replacement of Randles by his brother Lord Robert.''
 * Manchester North-West wasn't an ordinary run of the mill seat but a flagship constituency where big political battles were fought with ramifications beyond the division itself and so it attracted multiple big names including sitting MPs who were promised back-up seats in the event they lost. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did wonder as I knew Bonar Law had done it in December 1910 (and there was speculation that Churchill might come back from Dundee to oppose him), but was concerned by the lack of references to it, so it is great to see sources that clear the issue up. Dunarc (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Paul Bew's recent short study "Churchill and Ireland" contains several pages of discussion about his NW Manchester elections - the 1906 GE and the famous by-election in 1908 which he lost to Joynson-Hicks. The issues weren't just free trade (although that continued to be a big issue for the Lancashire cotton trade into the 1930s, with the passage of Samuel Hoare's India Act) but also religion (lots of Irish voters and lots of locals who disliked them - and the intensely sectarian politics of Liverpool/Manchester/Lancashire spilled over into education debates) and East European Jewish immigration (the Jews of Manchester are assimilated nowadays but some of their descendants are prominent in public life). David Dutton's biog of Simon may shed a small amount of light.Paulturtle (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as Bonar Law, Churchill and NW Manchester in December 1910 goes, Law's 1999 biographer RJQ Adams says that there were stories that he challenged Churchill to a fight, with the stipulation that the loser would stay out of Parliament until the next GE (which would have been the end of 1918, missing out on the Ulster Crisis and WW1). He says that the tale first appears in writing in Robert Blake's 1950s biog of Bonar Law, but that there does not appear to be any contemporary written evidence to confirm it. However, there may be some truth in it as Churchill campaigned early (NW Manchester polled early, in the days when elections were spread over several days) and noisily in his safe seat of Dundee, as though to advertise his lack of interest in returning to NW Manchester. Bonar Law said that his defeat at NW Manchester won him great respect with the party, and he was soon back in Parliament for Bootle early in 1912.Paulturtle (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)