MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON
IWAS tempted last week to write an article rebutting the rebuke administered to the Mother of Parliaments by the Leader of the House. I could have described the scene while its every detail was still vivid in my memory, while the indignation aroused by the cruel words of Sir Stafford Cripps still tingled in my ears. I could have sat up late that night and should have been in time to catch The Spectator next morning before it went to press. I had even fixed the first sheet into my machine and typed the words, "In the House this afternoon . . ." But then I paused. I was conscious that my mind was seething with what Byron has well called "The wine of passion—rage" Such moods of indignation are not adapted to a Marginal Comment. I tore the sheet from my typewriter and allowed the original placid article which I had written about the Bretons and the Cornishmen to go ahead. But my anger went on seething for two days. I read the newspapers with anxiety, expecting that they would add fuel to the flame by holding up the House of Commons to ridicule and contempt. I must admit that they refrained from doing so. As a whole the Press took the incident with calm and patronising good-humour. But then the anonymous letters began to arrive. I am under the impression that I never read anonymous letters, and it is true that when I see an unsigned letter, or a letter signed "Indignant Citizen" or "Outraged Elector" I throw it into the waste-paper basket. But on this occasion, at least, I fished them out again. "Good old Cripps!" one of them ex- claimed, "he has shown the k600 a year men up." I was interested by this letter, since, much as I respect Sir Stafford, much as I agree that his virtue is as incorruptible as that of Robespierre himself, I had never regarded him as the matey type of politician. And in re- reading these letters my early indignation returned to me in a cold form. I hope my readers will forgive me if I explain exactly why.
* * * * The House had met after the recess to hear from the Prime Minister a statement regarding his visit to Russia and the Middle East and some pronouncement on the progress of the war. It had been expected that the ensuing debate would last for two days and that the opening speeches would be made, either by occupants of the Front Bench or by those ex-Ministers or Privy Councillors who possess an implicit tight of priority ; the Labour Party had in fact been warned by their Whips that back-benchers could not hope to be called until late on the Tuesday afternoon. This procedure, which is custoinary in debates of special importance, was thrown out of gear by the Motions of Condolence on the death of the Duke of Kent ; the time-table for this reason was slightly, but not seriously, dislocated, and the Prime Minister did not finish his speech until half past one. Already, at 1.15, a small proportion of Members had left the Chamber to fulfil other engagements, and when the Prime Minister sat down and Mr. Greenwood rose this proportion was substantially increased. There may have been some who, as myself, went out because they wanted their luncheon. Others left for less material reasons, having engagements between I.30 and 2.30 which they could not possibly have cancelled.
* * * *
This pause in any debate is usual and useful. It is fitting that after a speech as important as that delivered by the Prime Minister Members should have time to discuss the points raised or the information given and to adjust their intended speeches in the light of the pronouncement made. Sir Stafford knew very well that such an interval for the dinner hour is a long-standing and salutary practice of the House. I admit that it was surprising that any Members should have left the Chamber while the Prime Minister was still on his feet ; I admit that the exodus that followed was not courteous to Mr. Greenwood, who by general consent has fulfilled his difficult functions as shadow leader of a shadow Opposition with magnanimity and skill. I admit that the subsequent events showed that some fault of organisation had been committed and that there had been lack of liaison or foresight in the usual channels. Such things have happened before and will happen again. But for Sir Staffdrd o rebuke the House for laziness and absenteeism was to
attribute to deliberate ill-intention or inattention something which was due to a combination of accidents.
• * *
There were five subjects upon which Members were anxious to speak. They wanted to speak about India, about Service pay, about the changes in the Middle East Command, about the Dieppe raid and about our relations with Russia. The first two subjects were excluded from the debate, and it was known that subsequent time would be allotted at which they could be discussed in detail ; the question. of Service pay was in fact discussed for ten hours on the following Thursday, and Friday's discussion on India is likely to be resumed. The remaining three questions were dealt with so frankly, so fully and so unanswerably by the Prime Minister that many Members felt that, at the moment, there was nothing more to be said. The front-benchers, the ex-Ministers and the Privy Councillors refrained from making the speeches that they had prepared ;
the back-benchers,- after courageous efforts on the part of Mr. Carey and Dr. Haden Guest, preferred u) hold their fire for another day ; and the House stood adjourned. Now in ordinary circum- stances that would have been regarded as a normal and even a sensible thing to happen. Sir Stafford Cripps' angered reproof represented an extraordinary circumstance ; and Members, who might well have congratulated themselves upon their reticence, moderation and political tact, found themselves scolded for laziness and self-indulgence. Which is absurd. Sir Stafford is a precise and high-minded man ; I beg him to take an early opportunity to smooth the feathers which he has ruffled with so petulant a hand.
* * * *
The word " feathers " is perhaps unfortunately chosen, since it suggests, not the angered eagle of liberty, but a flustered hen. The conscience of the House of Commons may in fact be tender, but not on the score of laziness or absenteeism. It is tender because, during the dim years between 1935 ad 1939, we had not the vision or the courage to warn the country of the dangers that lay ahead or to brace them to that immediate activity which alone could have prevented or delayed the present war. It is tender because the term of our mandate has almost expired, and since we are unable to refresh ourselves from the fount of popular suffrage. It is tender because in. war-time the gap between the Executive and the Legislature is inevitably widened, and because the resultant vacuum tends to be filled by the less responsible among our orators. It is tender because we are conscious that ours is a sedentary occupation, and that while we lounge and argue the bodies of other men and women are aching with exhaustion or strained by fear. This is no disreputable tenderness, and the reason why we were so hurt by Sir Stafford's reproof is that we know that many unhappy and inevitable circum- stances have contributed to place us in a false position and that our repute will suffer from the accusations that he made.
* * * * Nor is our resentment wholly self-regarding. It is not only
our own repute that is in question, it is not merely the industry of the present House of Commons that has been assailed, it is Parliament itself which has been lowered in public esteem. I have in my life belonged to many different institutions; I have wit- nessed and studied the proceedings of representative assemblies in many lands ; but the seven years which I have passed in the House of Commons have convinced me that, however sad may be our individual frailty or ineptitude, there exists no -legislative body in the world possessed of so high a sense of responsibility, so deep a devotion to public duty, so corporate a loathing of injus- tice or dishonesty, or so rich and varied a fund of experience, toleration and common sense. I also, in the past have criticised parliamentary procedure and advocated institutional and even electoral reforms ; but I have never questioned the principle of representative government as practised in our island. And it is this principle which, by the younger generation, is now being dangerously called in question.
Previous page
