Mr. Baldwin deserves the gratitude of members of all Parties
for the strong stand he made against a specially blatant attempt to set up Government by the Press. Most people have been genuinely shocked by a letter which Lord Rothermere wrote to Mr. P. J. H. Hannon, and which was read at the meeting. Lord Rothermere said that he would" under no circumstances whatsoever" support Mr. Baldwin unless he was acquainted with the names of at least eight or ten of Mr, Baldwin's Wiest prominent propoged colleagues in the next Ministry. In Other words (as we interpret the letter) Lord Rother- mere demanded that the Prime Minister in appointing his -Ministers should be -responsible to' Lord Rotheiniere as well as to the King. * *• * * Lord Rothermere has explained in a Public statement that this . was not his meaning that he merely- meant that " electors" had a right to know in advance not only who would be the Prime Minister, but who would be appointed to certain " key-positions." In this modified form he ha's' put forward a novel and pernicious doctrine ; Mit the blunter interpretation which Mr. Baldwin put upon the letter will probably -be shared by most readers of it. One hardly knows what to say of the political judgment of Lord Beaverbrook arid Lord Rothermere, though Lord Beaverbrook, did not join in the claim to be consulted as to the appointment of Ministers. Lord Rothermere has changed his opinion about food taxes several times. At present he is advocating them. His method of trying to dictate a policy to _Mr. Baldwin is rather like the Direct Action of the trade unions in the General Strike—and we know what Lord. Rothermere thought of that. Lord Beaverbrook coolly contemplates wrecking the Unionist Party, which is the only Party which could possibly secure Lord Beaverbrook's own policy. * * *
Previous page
