The Real Lesson of Crichel Down
| Author | C. J. Hamson |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1954.tb01210.x |
| Date | 01 December 1954 |
| Published date | 01 December 1954 |
The
Beal
Lesson
of
Crichel
Down
By
PROFESSOR
C.
J.
HAMSON
This
talk
by the Professor of Comparative Law
in
the University of Cambridge
was origilially brcadcast in the Third I’rogrrmme and is reprinted
from
“
The Listener”
of
19th August, 1954, by courtesy
of
the Ediior.
HE
Crichel Down enquiry has raised many questions of importance
:
T
for example, the nature and extent of the responsibi!ity of the Minister,
his powers
of
control over civil servants within his department, the manner,
if
any, of disciplining a civil servant for misbehaviour, and also purely political
matters such as government policy as regards retaining property acquired
under emergency powers.
Such queslions are,
I
am sure, of the utmost importance; but it is
not with them that
I
wish
to
deal here. Indeed,
I
regret that they have
ever emerged
:
because they obscure what
I
regard as the even more funda-
mental issue which is raised by the enquiry and upon which the whole
of
our attention should continue to be focused: namely, the desperate state
in
which the normal subject, the ordinary citizen, you and
I,
find ourselves
today
in
England when confronted with the Fowers vested in a Minister,
powers which actually are exercised by the delegate of the delegate of a
delegate, or by a collective anonymity which has as little
soul
as it has human
face. The capital revelation of the Crichel Down enquiry is how entirely
defenceless the normal citizen is in England today against a Ministry acting
within the ambit
of
its enormous powers
:
powers which give to a single
Ministry a more arbitrary dominion over our liberties and our property
than was ever claimed by any Stuart king.
The Crichel Down enquiry is also important, because
it
affords the
public an unusual, indeed an unparalleled, insight into the manner
in
which
a
Department of State conducts its affairs. The report found that
“
there
was no trace in this case
of
anything in the nature
of
bribery, corruprion,
or personal dishonesty.”
It
would have been a good deal less disturbing
if
there had been some plain crime in the case
:
because the ordinary law
of the land is stilI powerful enough to arraign before
it
for crime even civil
servants acting in discharge of their duties.
It
is mucn more disturbing to
find that what happened in the Crichel Down case happened without crime
or tort or breach of contract or any legal wrong for which there
is
redress,
and that it happened in the ordinary course of government business.
A
sorry business it was.
I
will not again rehearse the findings of the report
;
the report itself
really must be read (H.M. Stationery Office,
1s.
3d.).
It
is to be read for
the insight
it
affords into the conduct of affairs at a Ministry. What
I
think
it is fair
to
say is that the report suggests that a group of officials, without
dishonesty but upon information which was both false and insufficient,
somehow or other, reached the decision, in the normal course of business,
that they would like, and that it would be a good idea, to equip a model
farm at Crichel Down
;
and the setting up of that farm thereupon became
a
matter
of
national interest and importance. Having reached their decision,
consciously or unconsciously tney joined together, as zealous members of
an organisation do and should, to implement their decision, to forward the
383
To continue reading
Request your trial