The Redacted Sherlock Holmes - Volume 4 Page 9

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvA6FtN8-n0&t=1694s

  In my view, at least, “All Through the Night” is as worthy a candidate as some of the other tunes that have been proposed.

  1 Editor’s note. The piece Dr Watson refers to can be heard in the first few seconds in the music under the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvA6FtN8-n0&t=1694s

  2 Editor’s note. The piece Dr Watson refers to can be heard under the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avMIRubcGVY

  A Study in Red, White and Blue

  My colleague Sherlock Holmes has stated that his brother Mycroft often is the British government. He cites as evidence for this the hypothetical example of a minister requiring information on a point involving the Navy, India, Canada and the bimetallic question. The minister could get the requisite data from various departments upon each topic, but only Mycroft can focus them all, and say offhand how each factor would affect the other. He is, as my friend describes, the great clearing house of government thinking.

  With the country blessed with such an intellect as Mycroft’s, it may be wondered what need there is of a parliament, plebiscites and elections. But it is precisely in Mycroft’s judgement of what the electorate is thinking where his skill is most pronounced. For all his palpable unworldliness, he has a sixth sense of what voters think is tolerable or desirable. Thus it is, that governments, irrespective of which political party should chance to have the favour of the electorate, turn to him for his wisdom on what policies should be followed and how such policies should be presented to attract popular support. I found that once my friend (whom I shall continue to call Holmes while I refer to Mycroft Holmes as Mycroft) had identified Mycroft’s convictions and sensibilities to me, it was possible to see his hand behind every significant move every British government made.

  Because of Mycroft’s unyielding grip on events, it was a considerable surprise to me when, one day, Holmes and I received an urgent summons addressed from the Houses of Parliament requiring that both of us come to an audience with Mycroft at the Diogenes Club in Pall Mall, the club of which my friend’s brother was a founder member.

  The Diogenes Club, as my reader may recall, is an establishment designed to suit unclubbable men such as Mycroft. As an illustration of its uniqueness, I would adduce one club rule which specifies that, save in the Stranger’s Room, no member is allowed to speak at all. If a member breaches this rule three times, he is liable to expulsion. Although not a club member himself, Holmes used the club’s facilities occasionally, because, so he told me, he found the atmosphere there soothing. To me, by contrast, social intercourse is a club’s raison d’être. But for a lofty intellect such as Mycroft, the club’s suitability cannot be gainsaid and it was, inevitably, in the Stranger’s Room that Mycroft gave us a characteristically distant greeting.

  “Sherlock,” he said, “it is extremely disagreeable to have to use the facilities afforded by these premises to arrange a meeting of such a sensitive nature, but it would cause undue excitement if the person who is about to join us were to visit you at Baker Street, or if you were to go to that esteemed person’s residence.”

  “Kindly stop talking in Whitehall riddles, Mycroft,” said my friend with some asperity, as he struck a vesta to light his pipe. “Whom is it that you wish me to see?”

  “We will shortly be joined by the Prime Minister, who has a petition of the utmost urgency for your attention.”

  As this tale unfolds, my reader will understand if I withhold any details of party or description of the person of the Prime Minister. Such details are in any case of no moment for, by the time this story is published, the events to which it refers will long have been forgotten, while the political coup my friend and his brother pulled off will go down as one of the triumphs of realpolitik. In any event, on arrival, the prime minister was so overwrought as to be barely recognisable as a sentient being, and the address we now heard came in a tone akin to ululation.

  “Mr Holmes, I am grateful to the permanent special adviser, your brother, for organising this meeting. I need your advice on how to deal with a matter of the utmost importance. It concerns the plebiscite last year on this country’s membership terms of the so-called Entente Cordiale and the more recent general election in which-”

  The prime minister broke off in mid-speech - I think overwhelmed by the magnitude of the petition being presented - and it seems an opportune moment to set before the reader a summary of the event to which the prime minister referred.

  Membership of the Entente Cordiale had originally been the jewel in the crown of British foreign policy. It stipulated that Britain, France, and a number of other major European powers would pool sovereignty on a range of issues, allow each other tariff-free access to their domestic markets, and permit free movement of people between the countries. This was to be backed up by an administration appropriate to supervision of the activities of Entente members, including civil servants and an elected assembly.

  Membership of the Entente had always been controversial in this country and remained so even after Britain’s accession. Many felt that the loss of sovereignty it entailed and the cost of contributions to the budget of the administration were too high a price to pay for access to the Entente’s markets.

  After much agitation, a plebiscite was held on Britain’s membership in the Entente and the electorate rejected continued membership by a small but clear margin.

  The result had led to the resignation of the previous prime minister. None of the people who presented themselves as candidates to succeed had ever displayed any great aptitude for high office. The office holder before us had campaigned against leaving the Entente, and had ascended to the premiership with a political record no brighter than showing modest competence in one previous position.

  The new prime minister had then sought to have this ascent to office endorsed by the electorate. However, this endorsement had been so tepid that the PM’s party had actually lost seats and been forced to form an unstable alliance with a minority party.

  “I counselled the previous PM,” I heard Mycroft say as the PM’s voice trailed away, as the still-fresh memories of the plebiscite and subsequent election ran through my head, “against holding a vote on a matter of complex government policy. The result was unlikely to be the one desired, I warned. My advice was ignored.”

  Mycroft paused to take a pinch of snuff before continuing.

  “And, when asked on the wisdom of having a fresh election by the present incumbent, I commented that what this country needed was a spell of strong and stable leadership. Seeking a fresh mandate from the electorate when already in possession of a workable majority and of a main policy predicated on a plebiscite was, I advised, the opposite of that. That my use of the phrase ‘strong and stable leadership’ was then seized upon and adopted as an electioneering slogan, was an ascent to a new height of folly.”

  Mycroft paused while a spasm shivered through the prime minister and Mycroft was constrained to ask, “Are you now able to continue, PM?”

  The words that then issued forth from the PM emerged in a tone of lamentation and with many pauses for thought. “I have come to office with a clear brief to disentangle this country from the Entente. But I had no brief as to what should be put in its place.”

  “Surely,” asked Holmes, “with an Empire of unparalleled scale at our back, our country has no need for an Entente with anybody at all.”

  “The Empire will not be with us forever, Mr Holmes,” said the prime minister, in a wavering voice. “Although a quarter of the world’s population enjoys the great good fortune of being subject to this country’s rule, most of them are agitating to govern themselves, either sooner or later. Having some of the Empire’s members at our back may eventually come to be seen as a curse rather than a blessing.”

  “But we are one of the world’s gr
eat economies and can easily stand on our own two feet.”

  “Before the plebiscite, we were the fifth-largest economy. The subsequent decline in the value of our currency means we are down to sixth and the outlook is bleak. Some of the more ill-informed secessionists have pointed out that our Stock Exchange is at its highest level ever, but that is merely because of the decline in the currency. It is down eight per cent in U.S. dollar terms since the plebiscite, while all the world’s other exchanges have risen as companies listed on them snatch the market share at present supplied by the British.”

  “Does secession bring no benefit outside London?” I asked.

  “The India office has reported that some Indian businesses would like to transfer the performance of their routine business tasks to British workers as the decline in the external value of sterling has made Indian labour uncompetitive compared to British.”

  “Is that not a good thing as it will provide employment in this country?” I interposed, scarce able to believe the tale of woe I was hearing.

  “We live,” said the Prime Minister, showing signs of being roused at last, “in an age with the telephone and the telegraph as well as a vast and growing train network. Steamships ply the world’s oceans with increasing speed. In the modern world, power is bestowed by specialist knowledge not by physical strength. Our future prosperity depends on skilled labour and specialist knowledge delivering high-salary jobs, not on the availability of cheap labour in cotton mills.”

  “Could you hold a second plebiscite in the hope of getting the answer you originally wished for?” I pressed.

  “There remains a widely held desire to see the end of this country’s membership of the Entente. Any attempt to point out the obstacles is met with bristling hostility including threats to blockade Parliament or to disclose the home addresses of members of the judiciary.”

  “But Prime Minister, we have a fiercely independent judiciary and members of parliament are elected directly by their constituents. We live in a country with a solid defence against the mob rule you describe,” objected Holmes.

  “Mr Holmes,” said the prime minister, fixing my friend with a gaze that spoke only of despair, “we live in a country where the people have kicked over the traces.”

  “So, is your objective now to prevent this country’s secession from the Entente by some other means?” asked Holmes.

  “I have already gone to considerable lengths to achieve this, but without success.”

  “Perhaps you could explain, Prime Minister?”

  “I selected my appointees for securing our secession from the Entente carefully as I wanted to make sure that the electorate rapidly realised the consequences of the choice that had been made. My foreign secretary is renowned for his lack of diplomatic skills and his main interest is in promoting his literary efforts. My minister for Non-Entente Trade is transparently motivated by lining his own pockets. And my minister for carrying out the secession negotiations themselves is still working out how to proceed even now - a year after his appointment to post. Between them they have made no progress at all on secession, or establishing new relationships - whether trading or other - with powers around the world.”

  “And what has been your response, Prime Minister, to this lack of progress which must be obvious to all except those whose duty it is to hold the government to account?”

  “I have reappointed them all of them to post since the election.”

  “Has this not led to criticism in parliament or in the press?”

  “My ministers’ palpable unsuitability for office has been raised by no one. The opposition parties are all as wanting in ideas on how to proceed as each other. The press sees a long, controversial and drawn-out process of negotiations as an extended opportunity to sell more newspapers. And yet, all the while, the popular appetite for secession remains undiminished. This country is operating with a government bereft of any idea of how to prosecute its major policy and with no scrutiny of its failure from any party within parliament or outside.”

  “And what is it I can do to help you, Prime Minister?” asked Holmes.

  “Your brother has pointed out to me that in The Noble Bachelor you express the hope that the children of this country and those of the United States may one day be citizens of the same worldwide country under a flag which shall be a quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes. I would like you to travel to the United States as soon as possible and commence negotiation of such an arrangement with the American president.”

  “So, you are of the view that the British public would accept that we leave the embrace of the Entente for the embrace of our transatlantic cousins?” asked Holmes, I think taken aback by the idea we should swap one form of foreign influence for another.

  “Politics, Sherlock,” interjected Mycroft, “is the art of the possible. I shall say no more.”

  “Is your foreign secretary,” pressed Holmes, addressing the prime minister, “not the person to be tasked to enter into such discussions?”

  “The foreign secretary has previously commented that there are parts of the United States he would not visit for fear of meeting the current president. This is an unpromising starting point for discussions.”

  “And would you not wish to lead the negotiations yourself, Prime Minister?”

  “Although I recently visited the president, it was clear he did know who I was. By contrast, Mr Holmes, the works of Dr Watson about your detective activities have given you a huge transatlantic following. You are seen on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the great minds of the age. And you can present your negotiation as something consistent with what you have always believed in.”

  “Is there no one amongst your colleagues to whom the same description could apply?”

  “Those in my party who have always believed in secession from the Entente, are insufficiently competent to deliver it. Those who have opportunistically joined the secessionists’ cause, are too obviously motivated by self-interest to be taken seriously by anyone. And those who have never believed in secession, lack the support of the British electorate.”

  “You make yourself very plain, Prime Minister,” said Holmes. “I am happy to adopt this commission, which I believe represents this country’s best interests.”

  A day later, Holmes and I were on the platform at Waterloo waiting for the boat-train to take us to Southampton. Rather contrary to his normal austere practice, Mycroft came to the station and gave us a final briefing.

  “You will be in Washington in six days and your first meeting with the president is next Wednesday. I am, unfortunately, unable to join you. My absence gives Cabinet ministers the impression that they run the country, when in fact their role is to make plausible my policies to the electorate.” He turned to address me. “Please send your detailed notes of discussions to me at Downing Street in order that I can brief the prime minister. I would be reluctant to let notes from someone with a reputation for embellishing the actualité pass to the prime minister without my having looked at them first.”

  After an uneventful crossing to New York and a train journey thence to the American capital, we were soon comfortably quartered at the British Embassy and, the day after our arrival in Washington, were presented to the new President of the United States in the Oval Office of the White House.

  “It’s good to meet you, Mr Holmes, and you too, Dr Watson,” said the president amiably, “although when I heard that another British delegation was coming over to see me, I thought that I’d finally get to talk to your Queen.”

  “I fear, Mr President,” said Holmes, “you may have been incorrectly briefed. Queen Victoria passed away some years ago, and was succeeded by her first-born son, King Edward VII.”

  “Sounds much easier to become king than to become president!” exclaimed the President. “When I stood for the White House, my campaign las
ted for months. I had to make big promises on security. And make threats to lock my opponents up. Now I’m in charge, I’m making America great again. So, you represent King Edward of England?”

  “No, Mr President, I represent His Majesty’s Government. We separate the role of the head of state and the head of government in Great Britain and it is the prime minister, whom you have already met, who wields the political power.”

  I could see that the finer points of the British constitution exceeded the sophistication of any briefing that the president had received. I was about to interject when a man, whom I took to be one of the president’s advisers, spoke with an unexpectedly British accent:

  “Mr President, perhaps I could explain: In the United States, the head of state and the head of government are embodied in the same person - since your election, in you. In Great Britain, there is the monarch who is the head of state, and the prime minister who is the elected head of the government.”

  The president looked sceptical at these words and grunted, “Well, this isn’t what I had in mind for these discussions. I was certainly expecting to meet your Queen.”

  At that moment, a new figure came into the office. The person before us was well-known to me, but I could see the president did not know him. It was the adviser who provided the president with a clarification on the identity of the small, tousled man who had joined us.

  “This is the minister to whom I have the honour of being a special adviser, Mr President,” said our interlocutor with the English accent. The president retained his sceptical look but the special adviser continued. “Mr Reynard is a member of the British government and responsible for boosting its trade with countries outside the Entente bloc, of which your great nation is, of course, much the greatest. Any discussions on trade with non-Entente powers fall into his purview. But, of course, we should hear everything that Mr Holmes has to say.”

  At that moment, we were joined by two more advisers who spoke with East Coast accents and, we could safely assume, were present to advise the President.