SIR IAN HAMILTON'S MEMORANDUM.
WHEN Mr. Haldane published first the Memorandum by Sir Ian Hamilton on Compulsory Service, and later Admiral Wilson's views in regard to invasion, we felt that, quite apart from the merits of the particular contro- versy, very great harm was being done to the public service. That view was amply confirmed by the course of the debate on the Army Estimates last Tuesday and Wednesday. The things which were said in the heat of debate about the gallant Admiral and General concerned are deeply to be regretted, and must tend to impair their official efficiency in the future. Yet if the opinions of these distinguished officials were to be dragged into what has become a bitter public controversy, it was quite inevitable that vituperative discussion of this undesirable kind should arise. We have not, of course, the slightest wish to defend Sir Reginald Pole-Carew's speech. Indeed, we condemn it very strongly as grossly unjust to Sir Ian Hamilton. But the responsi- bility for the scandal of a personal attack of this kind upon an officer in the position of a permanent official must fall mainly upon the Secretary of State. It was he who originally brought Sir Ian Hamilton into the arena of public controversy. Everyone knows that if you call a witness you must take the consequences of having him dealt with faithfully by counsel on the other side. Yet this elementary fact seems to have been forgotten by Mr. Haldane.
Mr. Walter Long, who seldom fails to bring to the con- sideration of public affairs the spirit of statesmanship and a high sense of responsibility, said, in our opinion, exactly the right thing when he asserted that no complaint was made as to the views expressed in Sir Ian Hamilton's book. The com- plaint was that if the practice of publishing the views of experts became common, a vital blow would be struck at the proper constitutional relations between the permanent officials and the Parliamentary chiefs' Department. He went on to deal with the whole subject, in words so wise and reasonable that we shall quote them at length :— " Critics of the Government in the House of Commons con- stantly demanded of Ministers that they should produce the views of those who gave them expert advice, and invariably, and, as he thought, very properly, those requests were refused. Surely it was the duty of the Parliamentary chief to obtain the advice of the experts, to act upon that advice, and then to take the full responsibility for what was done. Would the right hon. gentle- man have been prepared to place on the Table of the House the recommendations or the criticisms which he received from the permanent officials of the War Office in regard to some of the Army reiornas for which he is responsible ? Of course, to do so would be an act of madness on the part of any head of a Depart- ment. The House was told by the Foreign Secretary last night that on the Army and Navy Estimates a full explanation would be given of the publication of the book. That explanation had not been given yet. The right hon. gentleman had not answered the question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition last night : whether if the views of the First Sea Lord had been hostile to the Government they would have been published, or were they published solely because they were favourable ? "
As far as we can see, the only explanation and excuse that Mr. Haldane and his defenders have given is one which we only describe as a feeble to quoque. It is in effect the defence of the man whose dog ate the prize rabbit—" It was the rabbit what begun it." It is asserted that general officers on the active list have not hesitated to advocate compulsory service, and that therefore there is no harm for the Government to publish the views of general officers on their side. This is, of course, the merest excuse. Lord Roberts as a Field Marshal is no doubt technically on the active list, for there is no age limit under which Field Marshals retire. In fact how- ever, though not in strict theory, there is a whole world of difference between the public statement of the views of a per- manent official at the War Office and the views of one who is in reality, if not in name,a retired officer and has therefore the full rights of the ordinary citizen. To compare the position of a Field Marshal holding no specific command with that of a member of the Army Council (Sir Ian Hamilton was a member of the Army Council when the Memorandum was written, though he is not now) or that of the Pirst Sea Lord is perfectly absurd. Such a line of argument will influence no one who takes the trouble to consider the controversy on its merits. General officers on the Army Council or at work for the War Office are in the position of permanent officials.
The old rule that the views of permanent officials should always be at the call of their Parliamentary chief but should never be published, and also that the Parliamentary chief should always stand between them and public criticism and accept full responsibility for their official and al and public acts, is not founded upon any piece of official pedantry, but upon the soundest and wisest con- siderations for the public interest. It is, in the first instance, a rule intended to sterilise the bad influence of the Party system in our great Departments. The distin- guished officials in those Departments ought to be in a position of absolute freedom to serve loyally and unreservedly either party in the State, no matter what their own private and personal opinions may be. But this can only be done with a proper sense of personal dignity and self-respect if the advice they tender is regarded as strictly confidential. Just as no editor who understands his business will ever try to protect himself by quoting the personal opinion of the leader-writers who may actually write the articles setting forth the views of his paper, so no Secretary of State ought to attempt to back up his own views or his own assertions in a controversy by calling individual members of his staff as witnesses. The private relations between him and the members of his Department ought always to be confidential in the strictest sense. His attitude to them might indeed be expressed in some such terms as these.—We are imagining a Secretary of State addressing the chief permanent officials of his office on his assumption of the Seals :—" I want you, gentlemen, to feel the most absolute freedom in laying your views before me. Whether those views are or are not in agreement with my public utterances or the policy I adopt in practice, they will be equally welcome and equally valu- able to me. The more keenly critical they are the better I shall be pleased. They must always, however, be regarded as absolutely confidential, and as meant for my ears alone. Just as you must never express them in public, so you may be sure that, whether I like them or not, I shall never attempt to shelter myself behind them, or to use them to bolster up my arguments. If I adopt your views, they will become my views, and I shall be responsible for them, and no one else. Therefore, if my successor in this place desires to reverse my policy and you, gentlemen, are required to assist him in carrying out that change, you need never feel the slightest difficulty or embarrassment in doing so. The positive or negative policy which I supported will have gone with me. But this could not be if you, or some of you, had been proclaimed in public to have been in whole or in part the true authors of my policy. To give you this position of freedom, and at the same time to enable you to perform the first condition of your public service—that is, loyal obedience to your chief—I shall make it a strict rule that I and I alone express the views of the Department. While, then, you remain permanent officials of the Depart- ment, public approval or endorsement by you of my official acts and policy will be regarded by me as quite as injurious as that public censure or disapproval which it is an elementary rule of the public service to forbid. Thus, while I appropriate everything that I like in your views, and reject and commit to silence everything to which I object, you will always be protected by the convention that your views belong to my ear alone, and are never to be given to the public."
That may sound intellectually hidebound and autocratic, and may seem at first sight to put the distinguished per- manent officials, who may no doubt often be better men than their chiefs, at a disadvantage. Yet, as a matter of fact, the attitude we have just expressed is the salvation of the permanent official, and enables him to serve different masters in turn with perfect self-respect, and very much to the benefit of the public.
Before we leave the subject we may suggest a point of view which cannot, we think, fail to make the matter clear to the ordinary man's mind. If once the views of a per- manent official are given to the public, the critics and opponents of the Minister who allows these views to be put forth are certain to ask him, as men are now asking Mr. Haldane, whether the other permanent officials agree with their colleague or late colleague. Theywill say : "It is all very well for you to quote the late Adjutant-General, but please tell us what are the views of the present Adjutant-General, or of this or that great military official. Again, you quote the First Sea Lord, but tell us also what are the views of Admiral Bluewater and Admiral Whitecap. Then we shall know how to estimate the value of the expert opinion behind which you are sheltering yourself." Needless to say, a Cabinet Minister must absolutely refuse to be heckled in this way. The conduct of a public Department would be quite impossible were he to yield even in the slightest degree. But, on such a refusal, back comes the retort : " Oh, now we understand. You quote the experts when they are on your side. When they are against you, you suppress their opinions. You are therefore simply cooking the evidence to deceive the public." We come back, then, to the proposition that Cabinet Ministers must make up their own minds on the evidence before them, and when they put forth an opinion it must be put forth as their view solely, and not as a view learned from this or that man, or as something for which he is willing to share the responsibility. Only in that way can we keep the permanent official out of public, and ultimately out of party, controversy. It is most astonishing that Mr. Haldane, who is essentially a wise and prudent statesman as well as a very efficient administrator, should not have realised this rather elementary consideration. That he, of all men, should have plunged so wildly as he did in giving to the world Sir Ian Hamilton's Memorandum is one of the curiosities of politics. Such action might have been understandable in a somewhat raw politician suddenly raised to Cabinet rank. It seems inexplicable in a man of his experience. No doubt the explanation is a simple one. Even the ablest and most astute of men are apt to make occasional blunders. But when a man, distinguished or undistinguished, has made a blunder, the wisest thing for him to do is not to plunge any further into the morass, but to get back to firm ground as soon as possible. This, we expect, is what Mr. Haldane will quickly do. We shall be exceedingly surprised if the experiment of pub- lishing confidential departmental memoranda is repeated by Mr. Haldane, or indeed by any other Cabinet Minister, for many years to come.
Previous page
