r)prpmbor 30, TOT5. 
T. A N D A X O \\' A T E R . 
criticism which demands such infalUbiUty and 
which passes judgment on a consideration of mis- 
takes, not on a balance of failure and success, or 
steps towards success — for immediate success'cannot 
be commanded. 
Most surely the practice of universal heckling 
that does not distinguish the graver and permanent 
primary from the passing secondary issues, besides 
distracting the executive, blunts the edge of 
effective criticism, defeats its own ends. That 
is the paramount mischief of it. Here is a sphere 
in which the well-chosen part is more weighty 
than the jumbled whole. Such wholesale fauU- 
iinding produces in its victims a self-protective 
attitude, an inevitable habit of (incandid parrying. 
The lesson of the old fable is forgotten — that after 
all it is the sun not the wind that moves a man's 
cloak the soonest ; a recognition of good intention 
and of the achieved measure of success and of the 
difficulties invoked would produce candour more 
readily than all these gusty inquisitions. 
Any fool can ask an inconvenient or unanswer- 
able question. Parrying is therefore frequentl\- 
justified, necessitated. But only an official 
harassed by indiscriminate baiting into a complete 
forgetfulness of due proportion could have sugges- 
ted as sufficient excuse for the delayed Su\la 
Bay despatches -a literary general's amiable habit 
of polishing his periods ! 
Nothing kills initiative so surely as indiscrimin- 
ate criticism. Could any managing director con- 
duct a business hampered by a general meeting 
in perpetual session at which every detail of his 
policy was examined, discussed, and published, 
every confidential memorandum demanded, every 
trade secret laid bare and any decision challenged 
by the least experienced and well-informed of the 
shareholders. It is possible by ill-directed and 
persistent criticism to paralyse the energies even 
of the ablest men and produce an unadventurous 
temper which is more intent on the avoidance of 
mistakes than on hazarding the bold and vigorous 
move. And such sterilisation is unquestionably 
the tendency of opposition by heckling and by 
clamour, miscalled criticism. 
Is there no way of enhancing the value of 
sane and of discouraging and sterilising futile, 
criticism ? The more clearly we recognise the 
indispensable function of informed criticism the 
more important it is to endeavour to prevent an 
irresponsil)le policy of heckling on subordinate 
issues, which while it spreads discontent and 
dismay among the ill-instructed, while it brings 
comfort to enemies and puzzlement to neutrals, 
at the same time by rallying the more responsible 
folk to the administration perhaps tends to make 
those who should be the most watchful and helpful 
of critics more tolerant of even primary de- 
ficiencies than is wi.se. Again with regard to the 
more serious issues, is it essential that random 
challenges on but partially considered evidence 
be fiuiig out so publicly ? . Is the impatient 
egotism of individuals and of newspapers so in- 
eradicable as to prevent a serious prima facie case 
being investigated and, with the evidence duly 
marshalled, presented through influential channels 
for the private consideration of the executive. 
There is here no question of muzzling. Re- 
sponsible ministers could not well ignore a valid 
case so presented, for the\' would be without 
defence when .u a later stage, if the private 
memorandum has been flippantly or obstinately 
ignored, the matter came forward for public dis- 
cussion. Criticism so elaborated and so temperately 
handled would, it seems likely, be immeasurably 
more ei^'ecti\'e. 
It is at least worth debating whether there be 
no possibility, even at the cost of ignoring pre- 
cedent and hazarding a constitutional irregularity, 
of elaborating an organised critical body out of 
the jjrivate members. In default of the due 
official opposition to a coalition government why 
not a coalition committee to revise, reinforce, and 
to a certain wholesome degree control, criticism ? 
It might act as a sort of buffer between the 
irresponsible guerilla and the too heavily burdened 
minister. But such negative functions would, though 
useful, be the least significant of its activities. 
It would select and concentrate upon certain 
profitable subjects of enquiry, invite witnesses, 
marshal evidence. It would, in the manner 
already indicated present its deliberate findings 
lor the private consideration of the Cabinet. 
It would reserve the right to fullest public 
discussion which in lieu of authentic constitu- 
tional sanctions would gi\'e it practical authority 
and power. 
Such a temporary device of criticism, however 
irregular, might for instance, prevent the necessity 
for the proposal of a committee of enquiry which 
is in elYect the proposal of a vote of censure. 
Such a proposal, even if useful, is indeed not 
unlikely to be frustrated by a rally to the side of 
the administration of loyalists and moderates who 
would fear the blow to the prestige of the Govern- 
ment to be greater than the gain from the enquiry. 
That is to say it would be easier, in certain quite 
conceivable circumstances, to stifle enquiry and 
so lose the ex hypothesi benefits of it under the 
present regime while retaining all the distracting 
disadvantages of irresponsible criticism, intrigue 
and baffled investigation. On the other hand some 
such machinery as that suggested might be power- 
ful enough to rnake it impossible for the administra- 
tion to ignore the unofficial but well-considered 
view ; thus assuring the advantage without the 
scandal of impeachment. 
There is postulated in such a proposal a 
devotion to national interests, a courageous scorn of 
precedent, a surrender of personal egotism such as 
could only be plausibly demanded in a signal 
emergency. The committee, elected on some 
plan of proportional representation, would secme 
as varied a complexion as possible. It is not 
probable that all the irrcsponsibles would thereby 
be silenced. But they might well be curbed or 
discredited. 
How far the press would surrender its liberty 
of action is of course an even more doubtful conjec- 
ture. There are still profitable journalistic "scoops" 
in war not easily foregone. But the difficulties and 
disadvantages of a change can scarcely be as great 
as the manifest danger, the wasteful clumsiness, 
the suspicions and uncertainties of coir present 
procedure. The ftmction of public criticism is 
unquestionably disordered and needs some 
salutary process of rehabilitation. 
Messrs. Bums and Gates announce tlie twflfth edition 
" Avmt Sarah and the War," a tale of transformations, ol 
which MVin- than filtv "hoiisand copies have now been sold. 
'^ 
