SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
J. W. M. THOMPSON
In his remarkable Panorama appearance on Monday Mr Wilson contradicted more of his own past speeches, I suppose, than any Prime Minister has ever done before in so short a time. Far more than the questions put to him by expert interviewers in various countries, it was the series of quotations from his old anti-Market days which taxed his verbal re- sources. But does inconsistency on this scale damage a politician? I doubt it. Indeed, when the game is played with the skill and self- possession which Mr Wilson can command, it becomes positively appealing. The public, in any case, is thoroughly aware of the fallibility of its political leaders. It would be no great shock to the nation, but rather a pleasure, if one of them, one day, even took the unprece- dented course of saying, 'I was.wrong.'
I find those ministers who are not inclined to eat their words publicly rather more worry- ing. The absence of any resignations on the Market issue so far indicates, probably, how slight our immediate chances are thought to be in high quarters. Nevertheless, we have the Prime Minister's word for it that this is 'a great turning point in our history'; and since a fair number of his colleagues think it is also a wrong turning, the political air would have seemed a little cleaner for an honest resigna- tion or two. Someone up there ought to care enough to make a stand, this being undoubtedly one of those moments which demand of every politician that he takes sides openly. That's why the Opposition were right to put on a three-line whip for Wednesday night's vote, although I doubt if any Opposition has ever before issued such a whip to encourage. its MPS to support the Government. .
Emergency exit
It hasn't needed the anti-Marketeers to bring the ethics of resignation before us in recent days, however. Mr Anthony Nutting's fascinat- ing disclosures aboUt Suez have done it as well. Perhaps his example has also played its part in persuading a few ministerial minds that the wiser course, after all, is to soldier on and say nothing. For although Nutting resigned, And all credit to him for that, he went about it in such a polite and ineffective way that the force of his protest was reduced almost to zero, along with his political future. Poor Nutting, dutifully promising not to rock the boat, tiptoed out of office, out of Parliament, and out of public life altogether. What is the worth of such a resignation, except as a pri- vate act to cleanse an individtial con- science?
Walter Monckton, in whom Nutting confided, seemed to think their proper course was to wring their hands in secret and fade away, preferably unnoticed. To me this seems thoroughly misguided. I respect Nutting and any other Tories who felt as he did in those ghastly Suez days; I wish, though, they had had the nerve to break a few party-political taboos and let the public know the whole truth for once at the time when it mattered. It's curious to recall that Eden's own celebrated resigna- tion in 1938 (which has been decidedly roman- ticised in retrospect) was also muffled at the time by his reluctance to make trouble for party colleagues. The truth is that a good resignation in politics has to be more in the
nature of a cavalry charge than a glum ac: of solitary hara-kiri.
Secret ballot
I'm glad the National Trust members' poll has (for the present, at least) put an end to the clamour for an 'impartial inquiry' into its affairs. A terrible lot of nonsense has been written and talked about the alleged failings of the Trust, which still seems to me to be a valuable and efficient body.
Admittedly, the Trust has its little imperfec- tions. For example, I presume its secretary must be right in thinking that since fewer than one- third of the members bothered to vote in the poll, 'the balance of members are in support of the council.' As a member of the Trust, I'd feel more certain about the significance of these abstentions if my own willingness to vote hadn't been thwarted by the failure of any voting paper to reach me.
Cloud of witnesses It is sound historian's doctrine that the evi- dence of contemporary written records is more to be trusted than the memories of witnesses in later years. I was rather pleased to come across what seems to be a most elegant illus- tration of this when I was finishing Sir Harold Nicolson's Diaries and Letters last weekend. Those who have read this absorbing book will remember the description of the famous 'Munich' scene in the Commons—that particu- lar diary entry consisting, it is explained, of the carbon copy of Nicolson's broadcast the same day. It ends by noting how 'the whole House rose as a man' to applaud Chamber- lain, and a footnote explains that Nicolson added these words for his private diary: 'I remained seated. Liddall [the Conservative Member for Lincoln] behind me, hisses out, "Stand up, you brute!"' This reminded me of something. Mr A. J. P Taylor's Oxford English History 7914-1945 (published more than a year earlier) also.de- , scribes this emotional scene, and Mr Taylor asks the question: 'Who remained seated?. He quotes one historian of Munich as saying that Harold Nicolson did, 'despite the threats of those surrounding him,' but then adds: Nicolson has no recollection of remaining seated, though he remembers being rebuked for it the next day by a Conservative DAP.' In the words taken for the title of another autobiography of the period, 'old men forget': but their diaries don't.
Collusion .
I'm told that Lord Avon has spent the past week contemplating some form of reply to Mr Nut- ting's broadside. Perhaps he ought to enlist the present Lord President of the Council as an Mr Crossman has laid it down that 'in politic, there come occasions when honourable men are bound to practise deception and tell lies, and only hypocrites will impugn their person4, integrity when things go wrong and they are caught red-handed.' (Guardian, 2 November 1962.) With a Suez debate in the Commons looming ahead, it will reassure the Opposition to kilo" that the Leader of the House holds this ‘'ico
Previous page
