Inside Parliament

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24409, 21 September 1940, Page 4

Inside Parliament

"Watchman" Illumines the Scene

Right Honourable Gentlemen. By " Watchman.” (Right Book Club.)

What of the Night? By "Watchman.” (Hamilton.) 11s 6d.

There can be no doubt in the minds of his readers that "Watchman” has authority for his Parliamentary portraiture. It is the authority of a good mind, critical and informed, and for the most part dispassionate in its judgment That judgment is found, in What of the Night? and the earlier Right Honourable Gentlemen to be sound on the majoi issues. He assesses the men. From Benchers and others, who enter the pages of his surveys by two —or perhaps it is three —criteria. Their character and performance, first of all; their rating in the parties to which they belong (in which connection “ Watchman ’ makes us realise what very important gentlemen-behind -the-scenes whips may be); and their standing in the regard of the public. The first of these yardsticks is, of course, that m which the reader of “Watchman's” books has the liveliest

and “ Watchman ” points out that in the lime of pre-war crisis he alone had the audacity to speak to Herr Hitler in language that the dictators understood and used. “It seems to me,” observed Mr Duff Cooper, referring to the niceties of speech used by Mr Chamberlain and others “ that Herr Hitler never makes a speech save under the influence of considerable irritation, and the addition of one more irritant would not. I should have thought, have made a great difference.” In view of his recent appointment as British Ambassador to Moscow, the account of Sir Stafford Cripps has a peculiar interesi “There was a period about 1934,” says “ Watchman.” “ when every speech from the mouth of Cripps was said to be worth 100,000 votes to the Government.” A misfit in the Labour Party, he was expelled from it in 1931. but remained a man to be reckoned with He is described as “the mental mainstay of the Opposition,” the man. who “ alone among the younger and middleaged members of the Opposition has the authentic qualities of a. national leader.” Though a successful lawyer he is said to be more interested in changing the law “ to redress what he execrates as the iniquities of a wicked and a wasteful system To dethrone injustice is the passion of his soul.” Yet he causes a feeling of discomfort among stout working-class supporters when he speaks. He does not look the part of a working men’s champion In the later work. “ Watchman' answers the question implicit in its title with an expression of his faith in a British victory. “ because God’s Englishman can always be allowed to finish a dark and difficult job.” His portraits, of parliamentary personalities are not, however, unctuously flattering, nor is his estimate of the procedure, both in the House and around the lobbies, always high. He makes amusing play of .the words which work overtime in the Commons, samples being “ decent,” “authentic,” “pregnant”; whips are described as “not primarily interested in principle.” On the subject of what constitutes democracy he is at once scathing, amusing and enlightening. It is a word which has deteriorated, “ Watchman ” says, from denoting the provision of an equal share in government to every class and each individual into meaning “ classless " or “ un-classconscious.” Football crowds are to be admired as being “ democratic,” and so are elderly clothes, the kinema, the racecourse, and mixed bathing. “We are invited," he complains. “to acclaim New Zealand as ‘ democratic ’ because of the rarity of domestic servants, and because the few to be found in that loyal Dominion are allowed to argue with their employers to their heart’s content.” But while there are faults in the democratic system as it operates, “Watchman” in the end can see no substitute for it. He advocates that seats should be redistributed. and shows that “ the power of the purse” can have too potent a part in the selection of members of the Commons. Yet money alone will not win any man a seat and keep him in it. “He will need as well qualities of humanity, industry and courage. The more of these he has the better he will serve the British neople. It mav be that no member has been worthy of his constituency. It is certain that no dictator would be worthy of Great Britain." These two books provide good material as instruction, as the origin of argument, and as an informal and acute “ who’s who ” of the British Parliament. “Watchman” from his seat in the Press Gallery is a keen arid knowledgeable observer of what goes on in the councils of the nation, and of the foibles and strength of the men who. are—and are likely to become—the leaders of the British people. Not since A. G. Gardiner’s memorable books have we had any surveys as entertaining as, these of the human element in politics; though “ Watchman ” probably would not deny that he must recognise in Gardiner his master in this craft. A. L. F.

interest. As to the choice of a war leader for Great Britain he has never been in doubt. Mr Churchill was still waiting to be summoned again to the Inner Council table when “Watchman” wrote of him: “There is no man better equipped to preserve us from defeat. There were few men as likely to stave off the calamity of war itself. Is he to be recognised for his wise and absorbing patriotism? Or is he to be penalised for his countless indiscretions. . . . Will the die-hards accept him,, or do they cherish the discredited ineptitudes of isolation? Can they really wish us to be, in Churchill’s own language, ‘ edged and pushed further down the slope in a disorderly expostulating crowd of embarrassed States? -’ Is the true prophet for ever to be without the supreme honour of national leadership, to be, by a cruel anti-climax, thrust aside in the moment of Britain’s direst need with the shallow and ignorant taunt ‘What you lack is judgment*? ” That is in the earlier book, and in What of the Night? the author, after Mr Churchill had gone to the Admiralty, observes: “He was not allowed to assist in preserving us from war: he is only invited to help us to.win it.” •For Mr Chamberlain “Watchman” has little praise and no blame. He recognises the sincerity of the late Prime Minister’s handling of his conversations with Herr Hitler, and observes that as ariVautocrat Mr Chamberlain had ample personal motives for setting the nation on the road to the defeat of a man who had cheated him. He describes him as “thrust through accident and circumstance into the position of a national hero.” but recognises the intensity of the late Prime Minister’s desire to preserve “ peace in our time.” When it could only have been bought at the cost of the last shred of British honour, “he did not shrink from the dark path of duty.” Mr Duff Cooper is rated “ one of the best departmental Ministers,” with “grasp, application and the faculty for harmonious relations' with his staff,”