A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK T HE speech the Prime Minister delivered on
Tuesday has been rather differently appraised inside the House and out of it. By the average citizen, who read it in the papers or heard it summarised on the wireless, it was regarded as one of those admirable and comprehensive statements which we have learned to expect from Mr. Churchill from time to time, but combined with that was just a tinge of disappointment that the Premier had no actual piece of informa- tion to impart—even though it was hard to see how in the circumstances he could have. In the House, on the other hand, the speech was rated as high as any the Prime Minister has ever delivered there, largely because of the speaker's immediate success in establishing rapport with his audience. He gave the impression of discussing the whole situation with them, rather than talking to them, taking them into his, confidence, giving all the information it was possible to give, with obvious regret that he could not tell them more. The House liked his spontaneous retractation of the rather too enthusiastic term " brilliant prospects " which he had used in a message to a by-election candidate, and the substitution of " bright and solid prospects," and it liked better still the warm tribute in his closing sentences to the unity, resolution and public spirit the House itself had displayed throughout the war. And, of course, underlying everything was intense relief at the Prime Minister's safe return from his journeyings, coupled with the hope that only
the most urgent call will send him overseas again.
* * * * The air-activity on the 'Russian front is marked by one rather noticeable characteristic. I have been looking through the Russian official reports in the morning papers of the last week or so (June 6th was a Sunday, so no entry is included for that day), and find they run as follows: June 2nd.—Heavy raids on Polotsk and Briansk. " All but one of our planes returned to their bases." June 3rd.—Long-range raids on Smolensk and other centres.
" One Soviet plane did not return to base."
June 4th.—Large forces raided Kiev and other centres. " Two aircraft were lost."
June 5th.—Attack on Orel by 520 Soviet planes. "All but one returned to their base."
June 7th.—Mass raids on Briansk. "All our aircraft with one exception returned safely to their bases."
June 8th.—Great raid on railway junction of Unecha. "All but one of our aircraft returned."
June 9th.—Attack on enemy aerodromes. "All but one of our aircraft returned."
The fighting reported on June
were too per cent. up. * * * * It is a long time since I read a book charged with such obvious potentialities for good as the latest Penguin Special, Argument of Empire, by Prof. W. K. Hancock. The praise I am tempted to give it would sound extravagant. Let it suffice to say that the book is written deliberately in an easy, almost conversational style— Fellow of All Souls though Professor Hancock is—and that its con- vincing arguments are firm-based on indisputable facts, which the author never omits to mention. It is a defence of the British Empire, in which admissions of default season the unapologetic claims to credit where credit is due, as it is justly due to generations of British 4th evidently went badly ; losses traders and missionaries and administrators the world over. The chapter on India is a remarkable demonstration of what is possible in the way of a maximum of fact and argument in a minimum space. How invaluable such a book would be in America, one involuntarily comments. In fact, it should be equally invaluable in circles in this country where criticism of Empire is congenital. But America has not been forgotten in this matter. Penguin books are now published there at 25 cents in a format practically identical with that familiar here, and a copy of Prof. Hancock's manuscript was flown across in time for simultaneous publication. There no less than here this quite admirable little volume is, as I say, charged with unlimited
potentialities for good. * * * * Letters in The Times on the dangers of low-flying demonstrate the necessity of reducing these manoeuvres to the narrowest limits. But the necessity for a certain amount of low-flying must be recog- nised. One of the great achievements of this war was the hedge-hop flight half across Europe to bomb Augsburg by daylight. Results abundantly • justified it, but it necessitated months of training in hedge-hop flying over half of England as a preparation ; even low flights over schools or cathedrals may be almost unavoidable in such a case. There may be more expeditions like the Augsburg foray yet. What can be avoided, and imperatively must he, is' low- flight by exuberant pilots in breach of all the regulations. There is, I am told, a quite incredible fascination for young pilots in this kind of acrobatic, so much so that the most drastic steps have been needed to keep it in check. Several pilots have actually been transferred to ground-staffs as a penalty. Even that has not stopped a most dangerous abuse altogether. * * * * An article in last week's Spectator dwelt on some of the vagaries of the Eire censorship. Since then a communication has reached this office which provides just the necessary demonstration. Offend- ing sentences are not merely blacked-out, but cut out. The demand for pointed implements must be very stimulating to Sheffield trade, for some pages look like a kind of filigree pattern. The agreeable - part of the performance is a printed label affixed to the manuscript: " The British Examiner is not responsible for the mutilation of this letter." A very proper exculpation. * * * * If the Member for Frome, Mrs. Mavis Tate, should most un- fortunately be assassinated in the Lobby of the House of Commons, like Spencer Perceval, the reason will not be far to seek. In the Civil Aviation debate last week she had the incredible temerity to refer to "small countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland." What Pole could be expected to retain control of his passions under such provocation? * * * * "I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't start on her [Italy] this week," said the Hon. Mabel Strickland (if correctly reported) to a Daily Mail representative on Tuesday. The number of people who say exactly the opposite.of what they mean when they start with "I shouldn't be surprised if . . ." is astonishing. Miss Strickland, for example, quite certainly meant that she wouldn't be surprised if we did start on Italy this week. When you double a negative, instead
of emphasising the negation you negate it. JANUS.
Previous page
