Communists and the Crown

F

It may be that years of hard living have somewhat soured Britain's taste for the televised fol-de-rol of subversive hunting, for her recently completed Civil Service investigation seems, in retrospect, to have lacked the drama of its American counterpart. The sober temper of these investigations was reflected in an unemotional speech by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General of the Labor Party between 1945 and 1951, at Columbia's Bicentennial celebration. The long speech, almost entirely ignored by the American press, summed up the methods and results of Britain's policy towards subversives since World War II.

The way the Civil Service investigations were conducted did not lend itself any too readily to televised dramatics. The official government statement made in 1952 makes clear the effort to avoid hysteria; "In establishing rules for security in the Civil Service with respect to Communists, Fascists and their fellow-travellers, the British Government has been concerned to protect vital state secrets while at the same time interfering as little as possible with the civil liberties of the individual. In order to do this, a distinction is drawn between secret and non-secret posts. To have associations with Communists or Fascists does not in itself bar a person from employment in the Civil Service, as long as his employment does not put him into a position to jeopardize vital state secrets. If the Civil Servant's qualifications make it possible, he is employed only on non-secret work. But if his qualifications are such that he can only be employed in a secret post, he is discharged from government service."

With these principles the Civil Service investigations were conducted in some 17,000 "sensitive" posts involving about a million employees. The security checks were all made by British Intelligence officials on an individual basis--no man questioned was asked to discuss his associates.

The result of these security checks has been the suspension of 143 of the million employees involved. Of those suspended, 23 have been dismissed, 69 transferred to non-secret posts, while 19 have resigned and 9 cases are pending. Despite these small numbers the policy of the investigators was to transfer or dismiss all even doubtful cases.

Immigration Bars

In certain other areas, such as immigration, the British have been somewhat more restrictive of potential troublemakers. The practice of the government in admitting Communists is best stated by the present Secretary of State for Home Affairs. "It has been our traditional policy to let people come here to attend meetings even if they are likely to criticize our policy or our institutions, so long as they are not likely to promote sedition or cause a breach of the peace. The activities of the untiring and closely organized Communist international propaganda machine have, however, forced us to make special arrangements. Thus we are not prepared to let people come to meetings of bodies whose aim is to induce people to support the Communist propaganda line under the impression that they are dealing with a body that has a life of its own."

With this policy Britain has denied entrance to delegates of the bogus "World Peace Movement," but allowed Communists to enter at the specific invitation of certain labor unions and to attend certain technical conferences.

Shawcross emphasizes in his speech that he does not wish to draw parallels with the United States, whose "racial heterogeneity" and geographical situation make the problem of security considerably more complex. Britain has the undoubted security advantage of a closely knit country But besides this, certain safeguards of a customary nature have acted strongly to prevent the development of an inquisitorial type of investigation. There is, for example, the tradition that Parliamentary committees are appointed for only special, necessarily grave investigations. Shawcross believes that the British public would not tolerate an investigating committee with wide powers. Further, there is a Parliamentary tradition of not attacking a civil servant by his name as this would be considered an abuse of the privileges of the House of Commons since the man could not reply. Instead, censure is directed through the Minister of his department who may, of course, answer criticism.

The strength of these traditions lies in the support of Britain's two parties. The continuance of Labor government policies by the Conservatives shows that there is a wide base of agreement in Great Britain on the question of subversives, and that the issue is not in any way a political one. At bottom, chastened by tastes of totalitarianism that go back to the Star chamber and beyond, British feeling holds that in some real way these investigations are inimical to a free society. "In Britain," Shawcross said, "rightly or wrongly all parties have so far taken the view that the use of repressive measures against ideas which we dislike and are convinced are wrong would make the danger to our way of life the greater." MICHAEL O. FINKELSTEIN