MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON OUCH of the French newspapers as I have seen during the last
week have treated the findings of the Lynskey Tribunal and the ensuing debate in the House of Commons with charitable reserve. There have been some, even, who have drawn the attention Of their readers to these transactions, as furnishing an excellent example of democracy working at its purest and best. Under their polite references to the subject I detect (or at least I imagine that I detect) a note of disbelief. The French are a very honourable race, but since the days of Panama they have become unaccustomed to associate with their politicians that scrupulous integrity which they practise in their domestic lives. It must seem strange to a Frenchman that a veteran trade unionist and a rising young politician should pay such terrific penalties for what were apparently no more than grave indiscretions. The debate in the House of Commons (in which Madame mare put on her best black silk) would not strike every •Frenchman as a superb instance of corporate rectitude, but might suggest to many of them that the theme of virtue triumphant had been slightly overdone. -They might even smile, some of them, at the picture of the Lord Chancellor of England deleting with unsullied but regretful hand the name of Sir Maurice Bloch from the list of Justices of the Peace. And the complications which are likely to face us in our laudable. desire to dispose decently and completely of Sydney Stanley may, I fear, induce some of the less serious-minded Frenchmen to indulge in quips and gibes. There is, I repeat, nothing uncharitable in suZli merriment. It is rather that a large number of Frenchmen will not believe that we can have gone to so much trouble and expense, that we can have exposed individuals to such tragic unpleasantness, unless there were far more in the whole business than was allowed to see the light. Their smiles will be caused, not by any unkind Schadenfreude at our own little Stavisky scandal, but by spontaneous amusement at the orgy of self-righteousness which the whole business has evoked.
* * * *
I am Convinced that not one Englishman in a hundred doubts that the investigation was as thorough and as independent as it was competent and that nothing was discovered which was not disclosed. Most of us feel, moreover, that the penalties exacted, although atrocious in their personal effect, were not unmerited. And we are all creditably relieved that the rumours which had been circulating have in this manner been exposed as vain and untrue. • The relief which we feel at all this is in no sense a "soulagement honteux": it is a perfectly natural satisfaction at finding that corruption has not crept into our Ministries and that the standards of the Civil Service remain unchanged. Such pride as we may feel at this vindication of our national honour must, however, be tempered by a sense of shame at the conduct of certain British newspapers. Muck-raking is bad enough, but it is a sad thing when large sums are paid for the purchase of ordure ; nor can reasonable persons feel anything but sympathy for those of the victims who were exposed to the additional ordeal of ruthless publicity. All these are appropriate feelings, nor should I say that the nobility manifested during the House of Commons debate was anything- but corporate and sincere. Yet we must be careful not to allow our natural relief to degenerate into a mood of self-satisfaction ; and we should realise that to foreign observers this outburst of rectitude may seem smug and even suspicious. The stables were not in the least Augean, and they have in any case been completely cleaned ; there is no reason however why we should prance through the world with a smile of conscious virtue on our bright morning face.
* °* •
One of the most interesting questions raised by the investigation and the debate is that of the relations between the permanent civil servants and the Minister on the one hand and the Parliamentary Secretary on the other. Having been both a civil servant and a Parlimentary Secretary, I fully endorse the Prime Minister's state- ment of principle. The Minister, and the Minister alone, is justified in overriding the opinion of the permanent civil servant. Even in matters specifically allocated to him by the Minister, the Parlia-!. mentary Secretary, if he is a prudent man, would not act against tha advice of the civil servants without referring the issue to his chief' for final decision. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary as an insti- tution (and it is an excellent institution) exists for two purposes.' On the one hand he is there to relieve the Minister of the lesd important items of his House of Commons and departmental tasksi On the other hand he is there to learn the business of Gov Departments and thereby to qualify himself for more resroinr161 office. Quite certainly he is not there to dictate or determine policy that is the function of the Minister alone. In general practice, these) principles need no affirmation. The personal relations between ti Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, as those between both of them and their civil servants, should in any well-regulated Depart- ment be so amicable and fluid that no need rises for any demarcation of frontiers. But occasions may arise when the Minister has na confidence In his Parliamentary Secretary, when intimate contact does not exist, and in such rare instances the junior should either resign or confine himself to routine duties or to doing nothing at. all. In no circumstances should he take decisions which run counter', to the written Or oral advice of the permanent officials without first obtaining the approval of the Minister for such transgression.
Parliament, as we know, is the sovereign authority in our crowned republic ; but that does not mean that Members of Parliament should regard themselves as individual sovereigns. Such a thing exists as Parliamentary conceit. If a Parliamentary Under-Secretary acquires that vicious habit, he may well regard civil servants as men of lesser degree and dismiss their long experience as being purely depart- mental. There is a type of lesser House of Commons mind which resents being "run by the civil servants." The historian even, on examining, long after the event, the files of any Department of State, and on reading the sequence of minutes which those files contain, may come to the conclusion that in almost every instance it is the civil servant and not the Minister who decides policy. In coming to this conclusion he would be surrendering to the fallacy which afflicts all historians, namely the belief in written evidence. It may be that in nine cases out of ten the Minister approves the sug- gestions submitted to him by the permanent officials ; but these officials are of sufficient intelligence not to submit to their Minister proposals which they know in advance he would be unable, either from personal or political reasons, to accept. None but a moron among civil servants would write the same minute for Lord Mar- gesson as he would write for Mr. Shinwell. A Minister of strong personality immediately alters the whole atmosphere of his depart- ment; and in the shaping of events, atmosphere is a far more important element than the■ written word. The Private Secretary to a Minister or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is, I admit, in a delicate position ; he has a dual loyalty both to his immediate chief and to his own department. Yet most Private Secretaries, in my experience, have been able to cope with their split personality with the same dexterous decency as that manifested by Mr. Cross.
* * * * Human governance, . especially under a Socialist system, is an intricate business ; a fault in some remote and tiny screw may dis- locate the whole machine. It is an agreeable thought that what we feared might prove to be cracks in our machine turned out to be no more than a few splashes of oil. It was an expensive and highly disagreeable process to inspect the machine as thoroughly as was done by the Tribunal. Yet if the full value of this inspection is to be appreciated abroad, we should not weaken the result by express- ing undisguised relief, or start jaunting and vaunting with "Holier than Thou" upon our lips.
Previous page
