MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON WE all of us incline to adopt individual methods of thinking. There are those whose thoughts will not arrange themselves in the correct order unless they hold a pen or pencil in their hands. There are others (and Mr. Churchill is among them) whose ideas flow most readily when accompanied by speech. Some people con- tend that their minds are stimulated into action by the hum of general conversation or the accompaniment of orchestral music ; others, again, can only think when in the privacy of their own studies, and to them even the most distant sounds or music are interruptions. There are many people who, when faced with an intellectual problem, or even by the intricacy of a verbal phrase, resort to physical action and pace up and down with frowning brows. Poets and philosophers have recorded that the best ideas will only come to them when in the open air ; we have the picture of Wordsworth striding solitary, of Shelley in his pine wood, of Tenny- son looming black and enormous against the Farringford down. Thomas Hobbes, who was a man who organised the details of his intellectual method, would take a pen and an ink-bottle with him upon his walks so that he could take notes the moment " that a thought darted!' It often happens that men who possess an instinct for action which amounts to genius are almost totally unable to express or even to formulate their thoughts: Roger Keyes found great difficulty in explaining his conceptions, and Lord Wavell, so lucid on paper, has never been exceptionally articulate when it comes to words. It has been contended even that extreme verbal felicity is an indication of superficial thinking, and that garrulous races, such as the Greeks and the French, acquire the illusion that an idea which
is brilliantly expressed must in itself be brilliant. If one reads a book
such as Dr. Strasser's "Die Denkmethoden and ihre Gefahren "- and it is not a book which I should recommend for light reading—
one acquires the suspicion that the most articulate forms of thought are not always the most profound. Yet it is certainly an advantage for a statesman to be able to use the correct words and to arrange them in the correct order.
* * *
Mr. Ernest Bevin is a man for whom I have the deepest admira- tion. He is firm and patient, ingenious and honourable. He com- bines a strong imaginative and sympathetic faculty with a remarkable ability to see the issues before him in their correct proportions. He does not allow personal considerations or the desire to achieve im- mediate successes to cloud his instinct for policy. But his Denk- methoden do not lend themselves with any readiness to parliamentary exposition. One is reminded of the Duke of Wellington's remarks concerning Lord Castlereagh, who with all his great lucidity of mind was unable to express his policy either in words or upon paper. " Lord Castlereagh," said the Duke, " possessed a clear mind, the highest talents, and the most steady principles ; more so than any- body I ever knew. He could do everything but speak in Parliament. That he could not do." One gathers from contemporary records that the endless parentheses of Lord Castlereagh's speeches and memo- randa caused amusement to his parliamentary opponents and acute distress to his friends. I am not suggesting that Mr. Bevin is as bad as all that. When one listens to him in the House one is so impressed by the solidity of his judgement, by the weighty con- fidence that he inspires, that one does not notice at the time that he jumbles his words or that he is given to use " could " when he must mean either " would " or " should." It is only when one reads his speeches again in Hansard that one realises that he is apt to insert into one idea the bits of another idea, and that he does not possess that precision in terminology which is so valuable if mis- understanding is not to arise.
* * His speech in the Foreign Affairs debate last week was one of the most important that any Foreign Secretary has had to deliver. He was.indicating, and indeed explaining, a new course. It was an impressive oration, every word of which will be meticulously scanned by the Chancelleries of Europe, if such things still exist. Mr. Bevin stated, in effect, that the experience of the November Conference,
and the overt opposition of Russia to the Marshall Pran, had for the present at least rendered impossible co-operation between the Four Powers. A new line of policy would henceforward have to be followed. Great Britain must now exploit and expand her relations with the Western European Powers. To that extent his declaration will receive the support of all those who believe in the reality of parliamentary democracy. But Mr. Bevin must have known very well that many people, even within his own party, have for months, and even years, been asking themselves the question whether any institutional form should be given to this expansion. Is it to be merely a new Entente, or a new system of alliances, or a • Western bloc, or a Customs Union, or a Federation, or a Union? Such terms have been bandied about for years and have become symbols of theories. It is true that in many cases they have been employed thoughtlessly and without any serious study of the difficulties in- volved. That, however, is not the point ; the point is that these various words or terms have been used by many people in many countries to designate several quite different things. There is, for instance, all the difference in the world between a Federation, a Union and an Alliance. Mr. Bevin, therefore, should have been careful either to avoid all current terms, or else to invent a new term, or else to employ whichever of the current terms he really meant to employ. He exercised no such terminological caution. He used all the current terms all the time.
He began, quite rightly, by saying that it was easier to draw up a blue print for a United Western Europe than to work out the practical details for such a scheme. The time, none the less, was ripe for the " consolidation " of Western Europe. Our treaty with France, and the intended treaties with the Benelux countries, would form an important nucleus for that consolidation. We must proceed step by step. Up to that point his intentions were clear. But as
he proceeded with his speech he began to employ words and phrases which can only confuse understanding. At one moment he spoke of Western Europe as a "unit " ; a few minutes later he was referring to the " organisation and support of a Western Union " ; in a later passage he used the odd word "organism," and he ended by saying that the whole scheme aimed, not at a rigid system, but at a " spiritual union " or a " brotherhood." This mutable and imprecise phraseo- logy will inevitably lead foreign observers to interpret his statements in their owti manner. The Russians will regard the scheme as a Western bloc organised as the spearhead of American capitalism. The Germans will interpret the speech as a hint of the opportunity for which they have been longing. Count Coudenhove-Kalergi will be convinced that he has converted Mr. Bevin to his scheme of a United Europe even as he converted Monsieur Briand many years ago. And large sections of American opinion will suppose. that Mr. Bevin intends to transfer to Western Europe the benefits of the American federal system. None of these expectations is likely to be realised. Mr. Bevin indicated a line of policy with which a large majority of people will agree ; it is unfortunate that by employing many inconsistent terms he should have exposed his pronouncement to conflicting interpretations.
* *
It may be that, as a former civil servant, I attach an exaggerated importance to the precise use of words. But if, as I believe, diplo- macy is the art of inspiring confidence, then any ambiguity of language is an impediment to leadership. In any democratic system it is difficult for a responsible Minister to dot every " i " and oross every "t"; but if he cannot always say all that he means, he can at least avoid using token words which will tempt °theirs to distort his meaning. We are almost all of us agreed that the only hope of peace is to render the Marshall Plan a success on the lines that Mr. Bevin indicates"; but we have only to consider the internal pre- occupations of France and Italy, or the external apprehensions of the Scandinavian countries, to realise that we must advance slowly and with the utmost precision.
Previous page
