Political Commentary
BY HENRY FAIRLIE 0 N the day after the Burgess-Maclean debate I lunched with an American journalist. He told me that in the United States the statements by Mr. Macmillan, Sir Anthony Eden and Mr. Herbert Morrison (why should the Government put up three speakers in one debate?) would be regarded as a 'cover-up' operation. So they were. Mr. Mac- millan and Sir Anthony Eden were as astute as one expected them to be. They fought their battle on the question of security —and were therefore able to point out that, within British law, almost all (if not quite all) had been done which was possible. But, as was pointed out in a leading article in the Spectator some weeks ago, the question of security is really subsidiary. The important question is whether the Foreign Office does not have traditions; habits and assumptions which help to protect men and women who are unfit for. State service. Sir Anthony Eden offered an inquiry into the question of security. He refused an inquiry into the Foreign Office. In that offer and that refusal the whole issue is summed up. The only 'MP who posed the unanswered questions was Mr. Richard Crossman (though it muSt be admitted that Mr. Alfred Robens took a few lusty swipes later in the debate). No back-bench Conserva- tive MP sought to make anything of the issue, and in the absence of a lead from a prominent Conservative back-bench MP the issue is likely to die. But those in authority, while congratulating themselves on their temporary victory, should be under no illusions. The name of the Foreign Office now means very little either here or abroad.
Given that he was going to cover up, given the brief which he had set himself to expound, Mr. Macmillan did very well indeed. I can think of very few Ministers, of either party, who would have been able to get away with murder as he .did. At almost every point of his long speech he was in full command both of his argument and of the House. The only time he faltered was when he was defending the appointment of Maclean as head of the American Department after the riotous episode in Cairo. Both he and Sir Anthony Eden suggested that the Foreign Office, in giving Maclean a 'second chance,' had done no more than any other decent employer would have done. This is beside the point. The Foreign Office is not any other employer. It has special responsibilities. Most of the journalists I know, for example, are eminently employable as journalists, but I would be horrified if any one of them was recruited by the'Foreign Office. Nevertheless, the skill of Mr. Macmillan's performance remains as a lasting impression. Many Conservative back-bench MPs believe he saved the Government from an awkward spot, and 1 think the increased assurance in his manner should be noted.
Mr. Macmillan was only one of the three people whom one had to watch during the debate. The second was Mr. Anthony Nutting, the Nixon of the Conservative Party. There is some- thing about him which makes it difficult to take one's eyes off him. With that effortless superiority which only those who have got somewhere without doing anything are entitled to cultivate, he reclines on the Front Bench, the smooth features hung gracefully over the green leather, the right leg crossed elegantly over the left. In the Burgess-Maclean debate he chose a safe moment to intervene. What could be safer than smacking down Lieutenant-Colonel Marcus Lipton for pillorying Mr. Harold Philby inside the House of Commons—but not outside? Mr. Nutting did it as well as any junior Minister would have done, and added to his well-deserved 'reputation for doing what is expected of him. The third prominent figure in the debate was Senator McCarthy. He was there from start to finish—on both sides of the House. Not only Ministers—who found in him a, convenient ally—but back-bench MPs as well were constantly looking over their shoulders at him. There he sat, simultane- ously the member for 630 seats, and no speaker thought of challenging his credentials.
I see that Mr. Kenneth Younger has been disputing the thesis of Professor Lionel Robbins that it is important to preserve and encourage accumulations of privately owned wealth— whether the owner is an individual or a corporation—since they are the only centres of power outside the State. It was with this thesis that I first made my entry into the columns of the Spectator some sixteen months ago, so I hope I may be allowed one brief observation. Mr. Younger has been adept at keeping his feet in all the camps inside the Labour Party. His discreet flirtations with Bevanism must therefore have been sufficient to make him realise that the Bevanite movement has been a rich man's movement. There is no doubt at all that it has cost a lot of money to run—just as the original Tribune before the war had to be started with the help of rich men—and I have heard it suggested by one prominent Bevanite that the actual cost could be put at something like £10,000 a year. But whether that precise figure is accurate or not, will Mr. Younger stop for one moment and consider whether a protest movement (whether one agrees with it or not) could today be run, or could ever be run, without the support of rich men? They may be farmers in Scotland; they may be lawyers from Glducestershire. But who can replace them? This is the question which Labour intellectuals like Mr. Younger have consistently refused to face. And it is a question which fundamentally involves freedom. Sir Stafford Cripps; Mr. Strauss; even unknown men like Mr. Mackie. Can a free country do without them? I would like to know the answer.
*
Having some slight parental interest in the use of the phrase `the Establishment,' I am both delighted to see that it is getting about (three other weekly journals have employed it) and dis- mayed to find that it is being put to work for the oddest causes. It cropped up, astonishingly, in a letter which twelve 'young' men sent to the Daily Express. The letter was an incoherent and emotional outburst about the decision which Princess Margaret made a week ago last Monday. The concluding para- graph of the letter asked : 'Is it to be wondered at if some young people are seriously considering quitting this country . . . ?' (They must be very odd young men who can write about themselves so seriously.) But, anyhow, I suppose I am entitled to call myself a young person and I certainly spend most of my time mixing with other young people whom I respeCt. Not one has ever conceived the idea of leaving this country. (One of them, I know, had the good sense to refuse to sign the letter.) But let me ask you, you worthy and mature readers, would you care even an archbishop's two hoots if Mr. Lindsay Anderson, Mr. James Cameron, Mr. John Crank9, Mr. Ian Dallas, Mr. Gavin Lambert, Mr. Humphrey Lyttelfon, Mr. Wolf Mankowitz, Mr. John Minton, Mr. Ronald Searle, Mr. Kenneth Tynan, Mr. John Whiting or Mr. Sandy Wilson quit this country? Do not let prejudice blind you. You may not have heard of more than one of them, but that does not neces- sarily mean that they have nothing to offer to thik country. Give them the benefit of the doubt; and then ask yourself again if you would care a fig if they all took a Constellation tomorrow to the Fiji Islands. Good-bye, Mr. Wilson. And good-bye to your Boy Friends.
Previous page
