A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
ARE we, I wonder, heading up for a political debacle that will be described in retrospect as " When Labour Slept "? In June another application from the Communist Party for affiliation will come before the Labour Party Conference, and obviously with a new plausibility. The Communists have known how to exploit Russia's achievements for their own ends, and they can claim that they are today as ardent supporters of the war as anyone. That is true, but they support it not out of love for their own country but out of love for Russia ; the date and occasion of their conversion to patriotism is convincing proof of that. Does it matter whether they get affiliated with the Labour Party or not? To my mind it matters vitally, for they would go 'into the party not to be absorbed by it but to capture it. They are tireless political workers ; already they are said to be in a position to decide the attitude of some of the principal unions, which command heavy voting-power at the Party Conference. Once inside, it may safely be predicted, they will pursue the policy of permeation and domination with conspicuous success. But, it may be repeated, does even that matter? Again I suggest that it matters vitally, for it must never be forgotten that the British Communist Party is no free agent. Its policy is dictated by the Communist International, and it has to take in London the line laid down in Moscow. Noshing could be worse for Anglo- Russian friendship than that, for the whole basis of harmony between the two allied nations is that in internal affairs each goes its own way uninfluenced by the other. Any attempt, direct or indirect, here to influence Russia's political methods or beliefs would be strongly resented, and rightly. The converse is equally true. The mass of trade unionists and Labour Party members are so heavily pre- occupied with war-work of all kinds that they may all too easily fail to realise what is afoot. From now to June is not long: It is high time, and more, to awake out of sleep.
* * * * It begins to look, in spite of the doubts I expressed last week, as if Sulgrave " University " were really dead. It has applied for the revocation of its charter from the State of Delaware, and the following exchanges in the House of Commons on Tuesday carry • the affair a substantial step further: Mr. MANDER (Wolverhampton, E., L.) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had accepted the application for the re- gistration of Sulgrave University as an incorporated company; what the declared objects of the company were; and whether these included the"conferring of degrees.
Mr. DALTON (Bishop Auckland, Lab.).—No, Sir. The application has now been withdrawn. According to documents lodged with the Board of Trade the objects of this organisation include the mainten- ance of what is described as an "international university," with constituent colleges in the State of Delaware and in England, and the conferring of degrees.
Mr. HILL (Cambridge University, U.).—Is the right hon. gentle- man aware that Sulgrave has been described in the news bulletin of the. Institute of International Education, New York, as a " fraudulent university "?
Mr. DALTON.—That is a very accurate description.
WING COMMANDER JAMES (Wellingborough, U.).—Would the right hon. gentlenian ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to give a moment's thought, to the reverend holder of a living in Northamp- tonshire who promoted this organisation?
It is no doubt still open to Dr. Crossley-Holland, the Vice-ChancePor, and the Rev. S. E. P. Needham, the Registrar, of the concern to carry it on in their personal capacities, for Sir John Anderson in an earlier answer in the House admitted that degree-peddling by bodies bearing no resemblance to the established and accredited universities could not be prevented except by fresh legislation.
The arrival of each new annual edition of Who's Who always raises interesting questions of canonisation. Who enters the ranks of major and minor (some very relatively minor) immortals for the first time? To compile an exhaustive list would involve an exhaust- ing effort of collation, but a few names worth mentioning catch the eye forthwith. An unusually large proportion of them seem to be foreigners, and though the volume is, and must be, essentially a British work of reference, no one is likely to cavil at the inclusion of General de Gaulle, about whose distinguished military career full particulars appear, or Generalissimo and Mme. Chiang Kai-shek (since these have to be sought under Kai-shek, the Generalissimo's name happens to follow immediately that of the well-known Japanese Christian,•Toyohiko Kagawa). Among soldiers we get for the first time General MacArthur and Glubb Pasha, Marshals Timoshenko and Voroshilov, among journalists Henry Luce and Alexander Werth, among politicians the Foreign Ministers of Holland and Norway. All this seems well justified, but the girth of Who's Who, due in part at any rate to indulgence towards egocentric persons whom it delights to inflate their autobiographies with trivialities, is rather alarming. The editors might well give a general warning that circumstances may compel them to bring a blue pencil into pretty vigorous action. There is abundant room for abbreviation, for it is not usually the important persons who set themselves out to look important. sf; * * * * An authority on Basic English, to which I made some reference last week, lays stress on the fact that though Basic English starts with a stock-in-trade, so to speak, of no more than 85o • words, it provides rules for expansion of the vocabulary to 20,000, and that therefore its ultimate flexibility is as important as its original sim- plicity. It may well be so. But it is possible, I imagine, to get on reasonably well with substantially less than 20,000 words. Shakes- peare is estimated to have used about 15,000, but Milton managed with 8,000, and no more than 6,000 suffice for the English Bible. So, at least, reliable authorities affirm. But demands made by modern invention •and discovery involve considerable expansion.
* * * * Mr. Alexander's statement in the House of Commons on Wednes- day that Commander Campbell, of the Brains Trust, had been a Paymaster-Commander on the active and retired lists of the Royal Naval Reserve, but being now on neither list is strictly speaking not entitled to use naval rank, is quite a shock to a public institution, for to auditors the nautical member of the Trust has always typified par excellence the bluff and simple navigator who has sailed his ship in storm and sunshine through all the seven seas. I don't know whether Commanders of different categories have views about one another, but it happens that the question which Mr. Alexander was answering was put down by Commander Bower.
* " * * * There is some room for a competition in the elucidation of headlines. This one, for example, from last Friday's Daily Mail: "` Deal with the House Shark ' Call."
Simple? Or not? It was too much for me till I read the article underneath. The classic example, of course, is the American " Oyster Jams Ice Probe."
I am not sure that " ice " is right, but that particular word i, immaterial.
* * * *_
" Everywhere I went," says Dr. load, speaking of a recent visit to Dublin, " people let loose floods of talk." Is cont.szion, or infection, the right word? I am never sure. JAsrus.
Previous page
