MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON
IN his popular but discomforting study of Conditions of Peace, Professor E. H. Carr assures us that we are passing through a silent revolution against " the three predominant ideas of the nineteenth century—liberal democracy, national self-determination and laissez-faire economics." It is true that the present current in favour of collectivism is strong and swift. Yet it is, after all, only a current ; it is not a tide ; and when victory comes, it may well be that conflicting currents may develop, taking the form of a reaction against the unusual in favour of the accustomed, of a reaction against planning in favour of enterprise, of a reaction against Hitler's New Order in favour of intense local patriotism. If we are fortunate in our statesmen and the mood of the time, it may be that between these conflicting currents we shall find the Middle WaY, and be able to evolve a system under which we shall acquire the benefits of nationalism without its terrible defects and enjoy the stimulus of private enterprise without incurring the chaos of uncontrolled competition. But if it were true, as the Professor asserts, that the younger generation have not only lost all affection for liberal democracy, but have actually developed towards it a revolutionary desire for destruction, then indeed we should be faced with the paradox of fighting for formulas which when victory comes we shall ourselves discard ; then indeed I, for one, should share with Professor Carr his mood of wry defeatism. I do not believe this to be true: I do not believe that the country as a whole has lost its confidence in parliamentary institutions.
* * * *
It is inevitable in time of war that the national interest in, and respect for, the functioning of Parliament should suffer a decline. The public are conscious that their immediate destiny will be affected not by what may happen in the lobbies of the House of Commons, but by what may happen at Tebourbah or Voronezh. The party truce, the existence of a Coalition Government, deprive parliamentary action of that acute sense of competition and struggle which makes so deep an appeal to the sporting instincts of our race. The desire to maintain a united front and to avoid all factious criticism induces the more serious pbliticians to relapse into silence and the resultant vacuum is often filled by windy words and feeble personalities. The need to withhold all useful information from the enemy imposes upon our leaders the need to withhold information from our own public, and to resort when necessary to the disconcerting device of secret sessions. And the fact that the present House of Commons is already more than seven years old inevitably detracts from its representative authority. All these factors combine to throw a mist of unreality over present parliamentary proceedings and to provide material for criticism to those who, whether from the right or from the left, contend that liberal democracy is in fact an outworn formula and that Parliament is but a fiction of little value to the Corporate State. To such critics there is one unanswerable reply. It is this: " What, in this fourth winter of war, would be the effect on public opinion if Parliament were permanently to adjourn? " Supposing that the British War Cabinet were to make a mistake as gigantic as that committed by Hitler when he invaded Russia? Supposing that a branch of the British fighting services were to display inefficiency as terrible as that shown by the German medical services in the winter of 1940 How would our public, in the face of such an error, in the face of such a scandal, feel if they were deprived of the certitude that through their elected repre-sentatives they could obtain in such matters drastic afteiation and redress? There can be only one answer to such a question.
* * * * The present House of Commons has no need, however, to defend itself on negative grounds or to suggest so extreme an alternative. It can look back with pride and self-congratulation upon its conduct during a year of almost impenetrable difficulty. Members are well aware that, in spite of Sir "Stafford Cripps' tetchy rebuke, they have worked assiduously, both at Westminster and in their 'constituencies.
They are aware that many excellent debates have taken place, many sound and constructive speeches have been made, upon such a variety of themes as India, the Colonial Empire, the organisation of the fighting services, the flow of production, family pensions, currency and loans, the control of venereal disease, the persecution of the Jews, the policy of internment, and the rights of the subject against the executive. They are aware that for one hour of every sitting day Ministers have been exposed to a barrage of questioning, in which matters of high policy or detailed administration are brought into the clear light of day. They are aware that throughout the year they have dealt personally with an unending flow of correspondence, seeking here to redress an anomaly, there to right an injustice. They are aware that week after week they have sought to interpret to their constituents the needs and dangers of the moment, and to report to those in power what the counties, the boroughs and the great cities are feeling at every successive stage of the war. They are aware that in their relations with their fellow-members they have sought on every occasion to extend their own knowledge and to increase their understanding. They can look back upon a year of desperate anxiety and labour, conscious that they at least have not been deficient in energy or clear thinking. It may be that no new Parliamentary figure of the first rank has emerged during the last twelve months. It may be that the majority of members are but ordinary people reacting to events in an ordinary way. But we can at least affirm that we have fulfilled Grote's famous dictum: " A House of Commons cannot afford to be above its own constituencies in intelligence, knowledge or patriotism."
* * * * Or have we not, in fact, during this last year, risen above Grote's level? I think so. It may be correct to attribute to the Prinie Minister's high qualities of character and intelligence the domination which throughout this difficult year he has exercised over Parliament. But it is also true that the continuity of resolution manifested by Members must be ascribed to " the sense of the House." In the dark days of last winter, faced as we were by disasters in Africa and the Far East, disturbed as we were by such appalling incidents as the loss of the Prince of Wales' and the escape of the Scharnhorst ' and the Gneisenau,' at a moment when the public were confused and even confounded, the House of Commons affirmed its confidence in Mr. Churchill by a vote of 464 to one. "The ordeals," proclaimed Mr. Churchill, "through which we shall have to pass will be tormenting and protracted." They were indeed. We lost Burma and our garrison surrendered at Tobruk. That,. indeed, was a moment when confidence was shaken, and when the minds of men were disturbed by doubts regarding our higher strategy and doubts regarding the equipment and organisation of our troops. Yet when at the very height of our distress Sir John Wardlaw-Milne put down his motion of no confidence, he was defeated by a majority of .45o votes. At the time also when the clamour for a second front in Europe was insistent and wide-spread in the constituencies, the Members of the House of Commons refused to be stampeded. A more nervous, a less sensible, House might well during those excited days have acted intemperately. It has since been rewarded for its patience and good faith. * * * * I am aware that through this article there runs a note of complacency. I am aware that in paying a tribute to the good sense of my colleagues I may be indulging in oblique self-praise. The example of the Prime Minister should teach us all that self-congratulation is the resort of little men, and that the wisest man is he who refrains from saying " I told you so." Yet I am convinced that the conduct of the House of Commons during the past year is a striking affirmation of the principles of liberal democracy ; that the people have been accorded representation which, although out-dated, although seldom brilliant and . sometimes foolish, although unimpressive in detail, is surely impressive in the mass and has shown a corporate intelligence and courage of a level higher than that of its component parts.
Previous page
