My Life

My Life - Oswald Mosleymalady of modern times is that fundamentally the parties appear to agree abouteverything; when anything goes wrong they just adopt each other's policies, but abuseeach other for doing it. All very practical perhaps, if it works, but disastrous to thepractitioners when it ceases to work. They are left with nothing—except their mutualresponsibility and mutual hatred, which can become a national danger, for the peopleare liable to believe in nothing if they have been deceived too long and too effectivelyby the central unanimity.This is surely a perversion of the English tradition, which had so many virtues and forso long astonished other peoples. It is part of the English genius to stick to principleswithout incurring the bitterness which often racks other nations. The basis is farsounder if it becomes necessary to come together in time of national danger. Britaincan then be saved by a tradition which is not often available to other countries.This national idiosyncracy—as others regard it—has found effective expression in ourtime. References can be made to the Other Club because it has recently been thesubject of comment both in books and newspapers. It was founded by WinstonChurchill and F. E. Smith and was confined to some fifty members prominent inpolitics, business, science, literature and the arts. The purpose was simply to dinetogether during the parliamentary session, and one of its rules, if I remember rightly,laid down that nothing in the procedure should in any way 'mitigate the asperities ofparty polities'. It was always said that the Other Club was started as an answer to TheClub, which was founded by Dr. Johnson and his circle, and in the early life ofWinston Churchill and F. E. Smith was conducted chiefly by Asquith and Curzon. Iwas fortunate enough to be elected to the Other Club at a quite early stage in myparliamentary life, and remained a member until I felt it discourteous to the founder toattend in the bitter controversy which preceded the Second World War.During the harsh controversy of these later years I was protected not so much byprivate friendship as by the public eulogies which had fallen like the gentle andrefreshing dew of heaven in my orthodox period. It was impossible to give me the fulltreatment of most innovators. 'Thug' was just possible when other people attacked mymeetings, and I had the impertinence to defend them with the aid of my gallant anddevoted friends. 'Moron,' however, was out, because during considerable periods ofmy earlier parliamentary life I had been praised in a way which sometimes seemedeven to my receptive ears a little exaggerated. The recent development of my thinkingmakes some of my earlier contributions appear immature to me now; nevertheless, thealmost universal praise during certain periods of my early life saved me from theexperience of most reformers. After this it was impossible to call me just a crank or animbecile without my detractors appearing ridiculous, and such attacks wereconsequently confined to those circles in our country which are themselves imbecileand receive no consideration. Lately in these matters I have benefited by a variety ofweighty judgments which I greatly appreciate.This inhibition in my case no doubt caused the fury of the established world againstmy supporters to be redoubled. It is a mistake for the rulers of Britain to be moved bypassion to persecute in such a bitter personal fashion the pioneers of new causes, tothrow mud rather than to employ argument in the free debate which is so muchadvertised in public and so carefully suppressed in fact. Sharp reverses of fortune andtreatment can embitter men. Some will seek revenge, and wait a lifetime to get it,84 of 424