TOPICS OF THE DAY
• MR. LLOYD GEORGE AND HIS SPEECH.
IF we were as "unjustly prejudiced" against Mr. Lloyd George as some of his friends assert, might make several matters in his great speech at Carnarvon the subject of injurious comment. We might, for example, use Mr. Lloyd George's old formula," Too late, too late "and point out that if he had said what he said on Saturday a year or even nine months ago the position in Ireland would have been infinitely better than it is to-day. Again, we might ask how he reconciles his present attitude towards Ulster with the harsh attitude which he adopted in 1912 and 1914, or with that which he took up when he seemed willing to let the just claims of North-East Ulster be smothered by a feather-bed of words in the Convention. Finally, we might inquire what guarantees there are that Mr. Lloyd George's new and happier mood will continue. But, though all these things might be said, we are not going to say one of them, or in any way let our mind be influenced by them. We do this not out of policy or because we think it the best way to hold with Mr. Lloyd George, but because we genuinely believe that the Carnarvon speech is a real milestone in Mr. Lloyd George's development as a statesman. We believe that when he spoke he was not making one of his sudden political darts, but, on the other hand, was showing that he is not so unteachable as we confess we have hitherto supposed him. It really seems as if recent events in Ireland had made a deep impression upon him, and that his native recklessness and irresponsibility are being controlled by his sense of the dangers of the situation. If we are right, then the Carnarvon speech is not a piece of Parliamentary statecraft, but is a speech of true, if recently acquired, conviction. Mr. Lloyd George is determined to stand by the country and its highest and best interests. In any case, we intend to treat the speech as an example of enlightenment until we are proved wrong. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Lloyd George and his immediate friends shall be given no oppor- tunity of saying that we were so prejudiced that we would mot support him even when he was carrying out in essence the Irish policy which we have ourselves advocated.
The best of the many good things in Mr. Lloyd George's speech was his defence of the constabulary. It is a good example of how a Minister should treat the men who have got to dare and die in the carrying out of his policy. He makes no endeavour to free himself from responsibility by throwing over the men on the spot. Mr. Lloyd George is generously loyal to the police, and justly and fearlessly demands not condemnation but popular sympathy for these brave and greatly maligned men. It is, howev most unfair to represent him, as has been done by Asquith and so large a proportion of the Liberal Press, as countenancing and so actually encouraging reprisals. He has done nothing of the kind, unless in our new political dictionaries reprisals are to be described as taking one's - own part, hitting back hard, or refusing to take ill-treat- ment lying down. For reprisals' in the bad sense—i.e., acts of defence which do not discriminate between the innocent and the guilty, and too often let the innocent . miler and the guilty escape—Mr. Lloyd George made no excuse whatever. He merely claimed, as must every right-minded person, that the police should not be judged unheard and on the ex parte statements of their unscrupulous, callous, and treacherous enemies. The cases of alleged reprisals are, he pointed out, being very carefully investigated, and no final opinion could be expressed upon 'them till all the facts had been brought out after a full inquiry. But Mr. Lloyd George was not content, and was rightly not content, with entering this caveat against judging matters on the sentimental Radical principle of the greater the crime alleged the less the care required in determining its authenticity, and the more indignation reserved for anyone who dares to ask for the facts, the true facts, and all the facts. In the eyes of such political extremists, if the accusation is only lurid enough, it becomes a malignant offence even to suggest the possibility of mistake or indeed of any form of defence. Mr. Lloyd George showed that what• are called reprisals are often merely acts of self-defence such as are always taking place in war. Remember that the Sinn Feiners have not only declared war upon us, but are taking every possible advantage of such a declaration. That being so, the police have a perfect right to act as combatants. To withhold that right from them while allowing it, as we tacitly do, to the Sinn Feiners would be gross injustice. The Sinn Feiner who shoots a policeman in the back has no more ground for complaint if a minute afterwards he is shot by a policeman who has caught him in the act than had a German sniper hidden in an apple-tree. For reprisals of this defensive kind it is a monstrous outrage to blame the police, and we are amazed that Mr. Asquith should have attacked Mr. Lloyd George in respect of this part of his speech. As Mr. Asquith is apparently trying to stir up feeling against the Government and the Irish police on this count, we have a question to ask Mr. Asquith which we are sure the country will insist upon his answering. Why has not Mr. Asquith used his influence more determinedly to stop the murders committed by the Sinn Feiners ? When we say this we are not making any suggestion that Mr. Asquith does not abhor the murder of policemen as strongly as does Mr. Lloyd George or any of us. Of course he does. But that is no excuse for his want of vigour in the matter.
Again, Mx. Asquith cannot urge that it would be of no use for him to take action in the matter since the Sinn Feiners hate him as much as they hate Mr. Lloyd George, and would therefore not listen to him. What Mr. Asquith should have done is clear. He should have made a strong public protest against the Sinn Fein policy of basing their republic upon wholesale murder. He should have told the Sinn Feiners in so many words that if the campaign Of murder did not cease he would refuse any longer to give his support to the cause of Irish independence or semi- independence. Unless they gave up murder he would give up Home Rule, and in the future oppose it instead of supporting it. Such a protest from such a source could not have failed to make a great impression upon the moderate Sinn Feiners, the remaining Nationalists, and the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
Finally, Mr. Asquith might have said, and should have said, that he would do his best to make his late colleagues and the Liberal Party as a whole adopt the attitude which he had taken up. If he failed, he would regard such failure as an expression of want of confidence. It is arguable, of course, that such words would have had no effect, though in our opinion they would have had a very great effect upon the position in Ireland. At any rate, they would have put Mr. Asquith in the right and, incidentally, would have made any protest he uttered against reprisals infinitely stronger. As it is, he occupies the lamentable position of having used language which renders the task of the Govern- ment in repressing murder harder, and of having refrained from using language about the organizers of murder which might, and in all probability would, have made their vile deeds more difficult. For example, if Mr. Asquith had taken the firm line which we have suggested, it would have been far more difficult for respectable people in America to do what they are now doing—giving support to men like Mr. Griffith and Mr. Coffins.
With what Mr. Lloyd George had to say about standing by the policemen, the maintenance of order, and the objections to a Dominion settlement we are of course in accord, though we regretfully note that the longer the Irish question is kept open the more difficult becomes the resistance to the policy of virtual Independence for the South and West. Though we are loath to press this point when Mr. Lloyd George has come out as so good a Unionist, we cannot forget that any form of Home Rule if it is not accompanied with changes that satisfy the majority of our Irish enemies, at once becomes an instrument for political extortion. By giving Home Rule, even of a moderate kind, we are bestowing on our enemies the power to get what they want and putting it out of our power to withstand them. That being so, it might prove a wiser and safer policy, if any change is made, to let that change be a thorough one—provided, of course, (1) that the safety of North-East Ulster is amply secured ; (2) that full compensation is given to the loyalists of the South and West who elect to leave those parts of Ireland ;
(3) that complete security is obtained against the misuse of Irish ports and waters to destroy the British Empire ; and (4) that the South and West of Ireland are made to pay not only compensation for the ills which the Sinn Feiners have brought upon the loyal citizens, but also their share of the cost of the war, together with all other charges' which are legitimately theirs.
Though we belong to those who think that if any form of Irish Parliament is given to the South and West it will
be almost impossible to prevent that Parliament from immediately extending its power and defying the Parlia- ment at Westminster, we are not going to quarrel with Mr. Lloyd George on that point. A consistent and united policy must be adopted with regard to Ireland, and must be carried out without any delay. That being so, we realize that it will be our duty loyally to co-operate with the Government in the policy outlined by Mr. Lloyd George and contained in his Bill. If the conditions we have stated are maintained, we must be content to risk the issue.
Before we leave the subject of Mr. Lloyd George and his speech we desire to point out, for the benefit of future politicians, how wise, and from the political point of view how profitable it is for the statesman to be firm in the face of so-called popular clamour, though a more correct name might be sectional invective. Where would Mr. Lloyd George have been now if he had listened to the demand that he must yield to the threats of the Lord Mayor of Cork, if he had permitted Archbishop Mannix io carry out a return ticket tour of treason and vituperation in Ireland ; if he had sacrificed the police in obedience to the unjustifiable cry of reprisals ? Happily, Mr. Lloyd George stood firm as a rock in these matters, with the result that, instead of his position being weakened, it has been enormously strengthened.
A Minister who yields to threats is like a man who lets it be known that under no circumstances will he ever go to law. The result is that he is assailed from every quarter. A Minister must always be prepared to tell his opponents that if they are aggrieved he will facilitate their bringing the matter before the Tribunal of the British People—a General Election. Mr. Lloyd George, we believe, has now thoroughly learnt this lesson and is beginning to enjoy its refreshing fruits.
The vigorous support that he is getting from the nation with regard to Ireland will, we cannot doubt, make him equally firm with regard to the coal strike and, what is infinitely more important than the coal strike, the attempt as ordered from Moscow to set up an illegal form of govern- ment side by side with the legal—i.e., the Council of Action. For ourselves, we hold that the challenge of the Council of Action should have been taken up the moment it was thrown down. Since, however, this course was not adopted, let Mr. Lloyd George and his colleagues resolve that its very first attempt to function will be treated as an overt act of revolution and will at once be submitted to the judgment of Courts of Law on particular, and to that of the nation on general, grounds.
While doing this, let our Government, by publishing the facts, make the country fully understand that the Russian Government had been interfering with our home affairs in a manner which no self-respecting and demo- cratic Government could possibly tolerate. We want to hear not driblets of the facts but the whole of the facts. Again, the Government must produce not only facts of the kind that can be accepted as evidence in the Police Court, but all they know. And here let us say that we think that Mr. Lloyd George was mistaken in not long ago giving us the whole of the facts at his disposal in regard to the Sinn Fein relations with Germany, and especially in regard to the organization of the submarine campaign. The present writer happens to be in a position Which enables him to appreciate and endorse what Mr. Lloyd George said upon this point at Carnarvon. Some day he may be able to tell the full story, but at present he Would not only be taking too much upon himself, but might invite reprisals which would involve risk to the lives of men who have already risked them for their country. A Government can protect its agents should they by some chance be spotted, but a private individual is impotent to helP in such matters.-
Previous page
