THE PRESS ATTACKS ON MR. BALDWIN.
EVER since Mr. Baldwin was confirmed in his leader-, ship of the -Unionist Party at the meeting at the Hotel Cecil, he has been subjected to persistent attacks in the-Press. We have not thought it necessary to refer to these attacks up to now, because experience has so often proved that newspaper articles obviously inspired with a special animus have little or no effect upon the mind of the public. It is true that occasionally a violent Press campaign has resulted in the fall of the man against whom it was directed, the classic examples of this during the War being Lord Jellicoe and Sir William Robertson.
But in these cases the authorities had determined, on strategical grounds, to relieve both the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and the Press was simply used, and in our opinion most improperly used, to prepare the public for changes which had pre- viously been decided upon. Otherwise, Press attacks on individuals have been, as has been pointed out, singu- larly ineffective, and in certain cases, notably that of Lord Kitchener, have increased the popularity and pres- tige of their intended victims. The attacks on Mr. Baldwin have, however, now reached such a pitch that it is almost impossible for anyone who is studying the present condition of politics to continue to ignore them.
The leader of the " Anti-Baldwin " campaign has been, and is, Lord Beaverbrook, and he enjoys the half-hearted and somewhat timorous support of Lord Rothermere. On the whole, the assault has not been conducted with any very great display of intelligence. The consideration afforded by the Leader of the Unionist Party to the Prime Minister in matters of high policy, to which we have previously referred, and for which we have con- stantly pressed in the Spectator, has offered a good target for cheap criticism, and this has been taken advantage of. In its earlier stages, the campaign proceeded on average " music-hall " lines, distinguished only by its crudity and almost childish naiveté. The following paragraph from the Daily Express is fairly representative. " Some of Mr. Baldwin's recent utterances sound rather Socialistic, and his kindly consideration of Mr. MacDonald in the Ranker Officers Debate, among other things, for instance, gives colour to this assumption. It is said by some that Mr. Baldwin is coming under the influence of his son, who is a pronounced Socialist." Such methods of attack may be safely left to the judgment of the public.
With the Westminster by-election, a new phase in the story of this curious undercurrent of calculated and unfair animosity began. It is no secret that many of Mr. Churchill's supporters hoped that Mr. Churchill would himself supplant Mr. Baldwin as leader of the Unionist Party. And the public felt that the almost hysterical support of Mr. Churchill. by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere was an indication of this design. Many people were apprehensive, and not unnaturally, that behind this .clamorous Press campaign to get Mr. Churchill in lay a plot to secure the return of the old Coalition " gang " to power. One thing, at any rate, is certain, and that is that Lord Beaverbrook did Mr. Churchill no service by continuing his attacks on Mr. Baldwin during the election campaign. In our opinion, Mr. Churchill's defeat was primarily attributable to this cause. Thwarted thus far in their efforts, the attackers immediately set about revising their methods. They returned to the charge with renewed vigour, and it is here that the affair begins to assume a more sinister aspect.
We should be the last to deny the right and indeed the duty of the Press to criticize any public man as it thinks fit, provided the criticism is fair and the motive sincere. We do not, however, consider it fair to accuse Mr. Baldwin of accepting directorships which will distract him from his arduous task as Leader of the Opposition, when, in fact, he has accepted the post of Vice-President of a distinguished Scottish life insurance office, a post which, as everyone ought to know, is a purely honorary one, cor- responding to that of " patron," and involving no work whatsoever and no pay. Nor do we consider it fair to attack Mr. Baldwin for not speaking in the first stages of the Budget debate, and to accuse him of idleness on this ground. Mr. Baldwin's reasons for not inter- vening last week are obvious. He was engaged in pre- paring three very important speeches, embodying the policy of the Unionist Party. The Daily Express did not print the speech to the members of the Junior Imperial League, in which Mr. Baldwin outlined-his social programme. That is not our concern, but we protest against an indictment which first accuses the leader of a great party of impotence, and then fails to print an important speech delivered by him.
The climax of these attacks upon one of the most honourable of our public men was reached when the May issue of a magazine called English Life published an article entitled " The -Jelly Bulwarks of the Con- servative Party," purporting to be written by a Con- servative ex-Minister. The article is personal and vituperative, and filled with gossip of a rather unedifying kind. Mr. Baldwin's leadership- is described as impotent and his " amiable weakness " said to be " scandalously exploited." Colonel Jackson exhibits " squalid weak- ness." Sir William Joynson-Hicks " is greatly dis- satisfied with Mr. Baldwin's leadership, as are indeed most of his colleagues." And so on. To give an air .of reality to- the article the personal pronoun is frequently introduced, thus : " During that memorable contest I as a former Minister held that no ex-Minister should interfere in a by-election." Further, the Daily Mail was "authorized" to state that the article was written by a member of the " Shadow Cabinet." He remains strictly anonymous, however, and the article should receive no more consideration than this particular type of journalism merits. For ourselves, we fear that the editor of English Life has been badly imposed upon. It is incon- ceivable that any man high up in the counsels of the Unionist Party should be guilty of such an act of folly and disloyalty. We can definitely state that this article was not written by any member of the " Shadow Cabinet." And we challenge the editor of English Life to prove that it was.
We do not profess to know what is behind these attacks. but we protest most emphatically against such methods as we have outlined. And the fact that these methods arc used forces us to doubt the sincerity and the motives of their employers. Is the whole of this anti-Baldwin Press "stunt" designed to further the best interests of the Unionist Party and of the country ? We cannot think so. By the persistence and character of the attacks the publications concerned lay themselves open to the charge of using their posi- tion—a position of trust—to pursue a personal vendetta. We have, in the past, strongly criticized Mr. Baldwin's policy and leadership, and doubtless we shall do so in the future, though we have nothing but praise for his conduct in opposition. For such attacks as these, however, we have nothing but contempt, moral and intellectual. They are a monstrous compound of distemper and ignorance. And none can have a better right to repudiate them than we have.
Previous page
