TOPICS OF THE DAY
THE PRIME MINISTER AND HIS CRITICS
TrIlE time has come to protest against the nagging, morning and evening, to which the Prime Minister is treated in some newspapers, particularly those owned by Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook. Even on Sundays Mr. Baldwin is not given a'rest, for then exactly the same monotonous tune is played. We do not as a rule believe that any useful purpose is served by one newspaper denouncing another ; it easily leads to habitual recrimination, which is unedifying and tiresome to the public and is shattering to the political party which the newspapers are supposed to unite in supporting. In a general way it is better to abide by the convenient principle that dog does not eat dog. There is a limit, however, to all things, and we cannot help saying that in our judgment the persecution of Mr. Baldwin, who never apparently does anything right even by accident, has passed beyond reason and decency.
Many onlookers are asking : " Can a political party possibly survive when the most popular newspapers which nominally support it are engaged day and night in ridiculing its leader ? If suggestion is, as we all believe, a potent force, must not this process of suggestion continuing week after week and month after month have its effect upon a public more apt to receive impressions than to think for itself ? " We admit that such a question stirs both misgivings and indignation, but though we share the indignation we should like to remind our readers that experience has shown over and over again that the Press is less powerful than it often seems to be. When Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was preaching Tariff Reform the London Unionist newspapers almost without exception were on his side. It seemed that his victory was as good as won, and the prophets foretold a sweeping success for Tariff Reform at the next General Election. Nothing of the sort happened. The inarticulate voter whose capture had been assumed showed that Mr. Chamberlain had fastened no fetters upon him, and the decisive rejection of Tariff Reform was one of the most notable political incidents in modern times.
Probably a partial explanation of the failure of the prophets was that they had paid far too much attention to the London newspapers ; they forgot the influence and range of some of those newspapers in the North and in Scotland, which had more happily estimated the state of feeling in the great industrial centres. That was a point which never escaped the attention of Lord Russell of Killowen, a singularly shrewd and observant man. After the Behring Sea arbitration Lord Russell of Killowen was heartily congratulated on his achievement by a friend. " You have a splendid Press," said the friend. " Yes," replied Lord Russell, " the London newspapers are very favourable indeed. But I do not know yet what the provincial newspapers say. They are very important." Remembering these things, we are inclined to say that the attacks on Mr. Baldwin should be taken seriously but certainly need not be taken tragically. We have every confidence that events at the Unionist Conference at Brighton, after we have gone to press this week, will show that unfairness has received its customary reward ; that there has been a great rally to Mr. Baldwin and that he has been reacclaimecl as the true leader. of his party quite as strikingly as Mr. Ramsay, MacDonald was re- habilitated at Liverpool.
Mr. Baldwin is being accused every morning and every evening of acting just as though he were a Socialist. It is said that he conceives of the State as a Universal Providence and that he pours out money in, subsidies, doles, pensions and bribes in order to establish the State in that position. Nothing could be more untrue. If Mr. Baldwin's critics really believe that the nation in its present mood would look on, not merely unmoved but With satisfaction, at an attempt to undo all those small social revolutions which the last ten years have forced Upon us, they are making the greatest mistake which intelligent men could possibly make. It does not much matter Whether we say that the hard economics which accompanied or were projected by the Industrial Revolu- tion have been killed by circumstances or by their own inadequacy ; the fact is that they are dead. Mr. Baldwin's task is judiciously to handle new methods in a new world. The old world fell about our ears during the War. It would have fallen anyhow, but the War gave it a mighty push and over it went. Mr. Baldwin is the right man for the Unionist Party because he understands the temper of industry and is very sympathetic towards all the natural and reasonable claims of the wage earners. He likes the hand-workers and they like him. He is above all others the man to try to lead his countrymen along the road of willing co-operation between Capital and Labour. Better than any Unionist we know of Mr. Baldwin is capable of inspiring his party with a broad national spirit. He has no- class prejudices, no bigotry. His methods are exactly the reverse of that Diehardism which in the present issue would assuredly bring us to ruin.
Several times we have had cause to criticize his leader- ship and no doubt in future there will be further occasions for criticism ; but we do earnestly protest against the doctrine that because in this shattered world he judges each emergency on its merits and is guided by expediency and a broad view of the question rather than by unvarying rules of thumb which are quite out of place in strange and unstable conditions, he is acting as a Socialist. Is it seriously proposed by those who denounce pensions, " doles " and bribes that the great Unionist majority should be used to make the tide flow backwards and to ensure a class warfare in the miserable hope that our own party will always be able to outvote the other? .
The system of insurance against unemployment and all the mischances of life is one of the most hopeful move- ments of our time. It is hopeful because it is scientific. We do not say that the actual scheme of the Government is satisfactory, for in our opinion nothing could be satis- factory that does not cover the whole field and get rid bodily of the Poor Law. But that is an ideal to be continually urged and strived for. It is rank folly at this stage of our development to call for a march backwards instead of encouraging the best brains in the country to make the principle of insurance scientific in practice as well as in theory and to free it from weaknesses and abuses. Can it, again, be genuinely believed that' a fight with the miners with all its resulting chaos and bitterness would have been preferable to the opportunity which is now offered of a truly bold and comprehensive reconstruction of the mining industry—a reconstruction which should cover not only the working of the mines themselves but their working in relation with allied industries ? Nothing, as it seems to us, can save the mines except a new con- ception of their place in an industrial world which has changed fundamentally since the War. Mr. Baldwin's critics, do nothing but scold him for haying added a new burden to our taxation—a burden which we all admit and all deplore—instead of fastening their attention, upon the vitally important necessity of, making a _new industry emerge froM the debris of the old one. _ We might examine the studied and persistent abuse of Mr. Baldwin at every point and find it similarly 'Unfair. It is not surprising that rumour attributes to Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook a desire to serve the ends of some of their political friends at the expense of Mr. Baldwin. We know nothing of their aims and are ready to believe that rumour is quite as unjust to them as they are to Mr. Baldwin. It may be merely that they are angry ; for Mr. Baldwin passes serenely on his way without paying any attention to them. But what incenses them is likely to commend Mr. Baldwin as an honest independent man to his followers. His sim- plicity, sincerity and sympathy are just the qualities needed in these times, and we believe that the Unionist Party values them and means to keep them. There is plenty of room for constructive criticism, for intelligent objections, in circumstances where methods of trial and error are almost unavoidable. But such criticism is very different from malevolence.
Previous page
