“Those documents, that evidence, prove to
me conclusively that the responsibility here lies not only with Sullivan and
Lewis, but at a level above them. It lies with those to whom they actually
appealed for help, whom they warned of the danger, from whom they received
indeed a decision which transferred responsibility upwards, but no other help
or guidance. That responsibility, transcending Sullivan and Lewis, has not been
recognised; but it cannot be ignored, it cannot be burked, it will not just
evaporate into thin air if we do nothing about it.
I am as certain of this as I am of
anything, that my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State from the beginning
to the end of this affair is without any jot or tittle of blame for what
happened in Kenya, that he could not be expected to know, that it could not be
within the administrative conventions that these matters should be brought to
his attention before or during the execution. When I say my right honourable Friend
was in this matter utterly and completely blameless, that is of a piece with
his administration of his high office generally, which has been the greatest
exercise of the office of Colonial Secretary in
modern times. It is in the name of that record, it is in the name of his
personal blamelessness, that I beg of him to ensure that the responsibility is
recognised and carried where it properly belongs, and is seen to belong.
I have heard it suggested that there were
circumstances surrounding this affair at Hola Camp which, it is argued, might
justify the passing over of this responsibility—which might justify one in
saying, “Well, of course, strictly speaking, that is quite correct; but then
here there were special circumstances.”
It has been said—and it is a fact—that
these eleven men were the lowest of the low; sub-human was the word which one
of my honourable Friends used. So be it. But that cannot be relevant to the
acceptance of responsibility for their death. I know that it does not enter
into my right honourable Friend’s mind that it could be relevant, because it would be
completely inconsistent with his whole policy of rehabilitation, which is based
upon the assumption that whatever the present state of these men, they can be
reclaimed. No one who supports the policy of rehabilitation can argue from the
character and condition of these men that responsibility for their death should
be different from the responsibility for anyone else’s death. In general, I
would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of
those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human-being and to
say, “Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would
otherwise flow from his death shall not flow.”
It is then said that the morale of the
Prison Service, the morale of the whole Colonial Service, is above all
important and that whatever we do, whatever we urge, whatever we say, should
have regard to that morale. “Amen” say I. But is it for the morale of the
Prison Service that those who executed a policy should suffer—whether inadequately
or not is another question—and those who authorised it, those to whom they
appealed, should be passed over? I cannot believe that that supports the morale
of a service.
Going on beyond that, my honourable Friend the
Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) reminded the House how proud the
Colonial Service is of the integrity of its administration and its record. Nothing could be more damaging to
the morale of such a service than that there should be a breath or a blemish
left upon it. No, Sir; that argument from the morale of the Prison Service and
the Colonial Service stands on its head if what we mean is that therefore the
consequences of responsibility should not follow in this case as they would in
any other similar case.
Finally it is argued that this is Africa,
that things are different there. Of course they are. The question is whether the
difference between things there and here is such that the taking of
responsibility there and here should be upon different principles. We claim
that it is our object—and this is something which unites both sides of the
House—to leave representative institutions behind us wherever we give up our
rule. I cannot imagine that it is a way to plant representative institutions to
be seen to shirk the acceptance and the assignment of responsibility, which is
the very essence of responsible Government.
Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where
and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We
cannot say, “We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia
and perhaps British standards here at home.” We have not that choice to make.
We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence
of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still
govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is
entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which
Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our
own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.”
EP
Denis Healy, a member of the UK parliament from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was “the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard ... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes.”
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Enoch Powell’s Hola Camp Massacre Speech, U.K. House of Commons Debate: July 1959,’ New Reform Club (Sept. 23, 2016, 7:18 AM), <https://tinyurl.com/4w7n5ruy>;
[reported here: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1959/jul/27/hola-camp-kenya-report] [audio by actor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk3pDBzr3Po]
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SethBTillman ( @SethBTillman )
Seth Barrett Tillman, Some Thoughts on Professor Garrett Epps’ “Trumpism Is the Symptom of a Gravely Ill Constitution”, The New Reform Club (Sept. 21, 2016, 2:04 PM).
No comments:
Post a Comment