LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. Signed letters
are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR]
THE BRITISH COUNCIL IN EUROPE
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR]
is natural, and healthy, that every public body should be exposed to public criticism. It is also an honourable tradi- tion that such criticism should, in general, be accepted in silence, except when it attains sufficient importance to be formally advanced in Parliament. I feel, nevertheless, that I cannot allow to pass altogether without comment the article which appeared in your issue of July 14th on " The British Council in Europe," not only because it contains a number of misleading generalisations about the Council's work which, when given prominence in a paper of your standing, must necessarily assume a certain authority, but in particular because the writer has chosen to attack the fitness of the Council's staff for the discharge of that work.
Mr. Cements, who does not reveal his qualifications for so extensive a criticism of the Council's activities—although from his artide one may deduce that he has visited the Baltic and possibly Hungary—denounces the Council's staff for their ignorance of languages and of the countries with which they deal, and for their lack of varied experience. I consider it due to them and to the reputation of the Council to say that between them they can provide a working knowledge of most European languages, and that it is a part of the Council's policy that the officers in a regional department should between them have a personal knowledge of the area covered by that department, and should travel in that area as widely as the exigencies of office-work and a regard for financial economy allow. The danger of over-centralisation in London, to which Mr. Cements refers, is further avoided by a system of con- tinuous personal contacts with individuals abroad, both British and foreign, who are in a position to judge the local effect of the Council's work and possess the intelligence and candour necessary to criticise it. I might perhaps add that the secre- taries of Anglophil societies are seldom the purveyors ,of inane civility which Mr. Clements represents them as being. As for variety of experience, apart from the numerous experts on technical subjects who advise the Council in committees, the Council's staff itself comprises men with experience of journalism, administration, diplomacy, the Consular Service and the Army. Not all have passed through a university, nor, surely, does the possession of a university degree neces- sarily denote an academic mind, in the depreciatory sense.
It would take too long to reply in detail to all the in- accuracies of statement or suggestion in Mr. Clements's article. If his peace of mind is troubled by uncertainty as to the sources of the Council's funds, he may be reassured by the knowledge that neither His Majesty's Government nor the representatives of all political parties on the Council itself have felt the Council's integrity of purpose to be in danger. If he regrets that the Council's aims are so restricted, he might study its aims and objects as set out in the pamphlet on its work issued to the public, and he might consider whether their proper achievement is not a sufficient task for any one organisation which desires practical results and not merely a vague omnicompetence. Finally, although I am happy to agree that the Council can base its work on a widespread goodwill and interest abroad, I must point out that the channels have had to be created through which that goodwill can manifest, and that interest satisfy, itself. It is the Council's principal aim to ensure that full and accurate knowledge of this country and its language shall be available to every foreigner who desires it, and the evidence shows that the demand for such knowledge is growing. This is not an academic work, though it is a work of instruction.
To the question whether the knowledge of Great Britain and her culture is greater now on the Continent than it was in 1935, I can answer in all sincerity that I believe it is. In the first place, the desire to know is, I think, greater, and something has been done to meet that desire. Thousands of students, including in that term learners of all ages and pro- fessions, have been provided with the means to a closer acquaintance with British life and thought not only in the classroom and the lecture-hall, but in the Press, the theatre, the concert room, the cinema and the playing-field, and not least in personal visits to this country. Hundreds of children of British nationality have for the first time received the opportunity of an education which will teach them to know and to honour the great community of which they are members.
I do not wish to pretend that the Council's judgement is infallible and that mistakes are not sometimes made. They are bound to be made, and there are bound to be those who prefer to remember and record them rather than the successes or the ordinary useful work. Further, I am confident that, on the whole, a balanced presentation of this country is being offered abroad, including, to use Mr. Clements's instances, slum-clearance schemes, as well as what he refers to as " glee- songs," comprising in that term the whole of English choral music from the sixteenth century onwards. In other words, both " applied " and " pure " culture must be represented in the Council's work, each in its due proportion, if a balanced view of this country is to be obtained. It is easy to distort this programme by directing attention to one part of it rather than another, but any serious study of the Council's work as a whole will make it clear that, in fact, proportion is observed.
Let me conclude by saying that Mr Clements's picture of a Europe alternating between boredom and derision is not borne out by our daily experience. The demand for the work which we are doing increases at a rate with which it is difficult, financially and administratively, to keep pace. That increase encourages us to believe that the lines which the Council has been pursuing during the four and a half years of its existence are in the main correct, being based, as they are, not on preconceived notions of what ought to be done, but on the express requirements of each country.—Yours
Previous page
