A SPECTATOR 'S NOTEBOOK
THE verdict in the Pucheu trial at Algiers has not been given as I write. It may not be the acquittal which all the evidence as published seems to require. The course of the trial as a whole creates a good deal of astonishment in the mind of anyone familiar with legal procedure in this country, for the frontier line between justice and politics appears to have been treated as non-existent. A political tirade by M. Fernand Grenier, a former Communist Deputy, was allowed to continue for over an hour. At the end of it M. Greasier, interrogated by a member of the tribunal about one of his charges, answered: "I am convinced of it ; I have no written proof." M. Mercier admitteFI that when the Council of National Resistance condemned M. Pucheu to death "the verdict was not based on any documents proving M. Pucheu's direct responsibility for any specific actions by the police or otherwise." The next witness made various allegations "but could give no proof." Someone else said that the verdict on Pucheu by the Council of National Resistance was taken "with very little discussion." Altogether the witnesses for the prosecution as reported (two or three were heard in camera) seem to have contributed no scrap of evidence that would have been admitted in an English court. The fact that political issues were involved in the trial is of course a reason for excluding rather than admitting political speeches like M. Grenier's. M. Pucheu was, presumably, unable to summon witnesses from France and was justified in protesting against his trial being proceeded with under such conditions, but weight attaches to the positive evidence General Giraud and General Bethouard gave in his favour on Tuesday. The trial has been talked of so much in advance that acquittal would to some extent reflect on the Administration. On the other hand, condemnation would look—I repeat, on the evidence as published— like a political verdict pure and simple.
* * * *
The recent cessation of air-raids over this country is no doubt due chiefly to the moon, which is full on Friday of this week, but no one supposes it is more than temporary. The next raids may be on a larger scale than the last. Whether they are or not, it would be a great reassurance to the public to know that the men indispensable to the Allied cause—the Prime Minister, the invasion chiefs and others—were doing scrupulously what is no doubt distasteful to them, taking adequate cover as soon as the sirens sound. There was a rumour after one of last month's raids that a number of high military officers (one distinguished name was mentioned) had been killed. There was, so far as I know, no foundation for the report, but its circulation served to emphasise the seriousness of the losses that raids might inflict. In certain circumstances it is the duty of both soldiers and civilians to expose themselves to danger. In this case it is the plain duty of men with tasks of supreme importance in hand to take all possible steps to avoid danger. They owe it not only to
their own countries but to the whole United Nations. * * * *
Someone should write an essay on Regulations and Rigidity. Very likely someone has. For what tragic follies result from obtuse refusal to relax in particular circumstances rules for whose formula- tion and general application there was a perfectly good ease. Here, for example, is a distinguished medical specialist from an Allied European State. He has lost everything he had in his own country, for, having lived for some years in Vienna, where he was a consulting gynaecologist, he came to England in 1933 when Hitler occupied Austria. But practise here now, at a time when we are told there is a grave shortage of doctors? No; that is con- trary to some provision of the Defence Regulations. He did hold a post from 1941 to 1943 at a country hospital under the Emergency Medical Service, and got a flattering testimonial from the senior surgeon there. But no lodging could be found within five miles of the hospital, cost of living was high, and after struggling for two years to support his family on his salary he was advised to move to London, where the demand for his services as a specialist would be greater. Now, as a foreigner, he cannot even attend patients m their homes or sign a prescription. This is a case in which the medical organisations seem to have been uniformly sympathetic but the Home Office obdurate. Is obduracy essential?
* * The appointment of three new Probate, Divorce and Admiralty judges brings the total in that Division to eight. It may be doubted whether Probate and Admiralty business occupies any judge on an average as much as one day in five. The new judges are needed simply to unmake marriages. That reflection is chastening. What- ever may be thought of the moral aspect of marriage and divorce, about the social—or unsocial—aspect of the increase in divorces there can be little controversy. Family stability is an essential con- dition of national stability. Marriages lightly contracted and as lightly renounced make poor soil for the training of national character, particularly where children are involved. War conditions make for laxity in such matters. That can easily be understood. After the war the sense of seriousness and individual responsibility in this, among other matters, may have either diminished or in- creased. It is not easy today to predict which.
* *
My quotation last week of Flight-Lieutenant Teeling's observation in the House of Commons. that "only 700 people took part in the Battle of Britain, which was as important in as many ways as Trafalgar and Waterloo," has brought an interesting comment from a Major-General (retired) who commanded an A.A. division for three years, and who dwells with some force on the part the aerodrome ground-staffs and the A.A. gunners played in that historic conflict "It must," he says, "have been at the beginning of August that I saw the German attack on X aerodrome, when all those Blenheims were burnt on the ground. . . . More R.A.F. men were killed on the ground at that day than in the air." That is a deserved reminder of a section of our defenders without whom we should not be defended. All the same, I think Flight-Lieutenant Teeling's epigram may stand. Epigrams do not profess to cover zoo per cent of the facts.
* * * * I have been sent particulars of the holiday which the London Appreciation Society is arranging for its members at New Brighton in June. I hold no very strong views on the " take-your-holidays- at-home " doctrine, but I should have thought. this particular society would. But perhaps the best way to appreciate London is to get
Previous page
