TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES.
MHE impression we receive from the debate on the 1. Address is that if only Mr. Lloyd George had clear principles to match his astonishing skill in managing a House of Commons debate, he would still have the ball at his feet. During the Recess we have heard a great deal about the tottering condition of the Government, but the Prime Minister, if we may judge merely on the points of the game, did not totter in the House of Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday. It must have been a curious spectacle. Nobody knows precisely what political principles the Prime Minister stands for, or upon which coadjutors he means to rely for support in future ; opposed to him were men whose views and aims, as compared with his own, were as clear as crystal ; and yet Mr. Lloyd George made havoc of their arguments and sport of their leadership. Neither Mr. Adamson nor Sir Donald Maclean gives him the least trouble. The runaway affair is something to make any student of politics wonder and ponder. Of course there are deeper forces underneath with which the Prime Minister will yet have to reckon, but in the debate these never came to the surface. One can say truly of the Prime Minister what the persecutors said falsely of Socrates, that he can always make the worse appear the better cause. When we talk of " worse," however, we must say at once that we do not refer to Mr. Lloyd George's admirably sane explanation of his Russian policy or to his brilliant attack on nationaliza- tion, but only to his general covering up of errors and omissions. If only words were deeds ! This week's proceedings in the House of Commons make us feel even more strongly than we did that Mr. Asquith's Parliamentary experience is urgently needed. It is bad for any Government to be without a well-managed Opposition, and it is particularly bad for the present Government, who steer a course from one accommodation to another, who are firm only when they feel that they are safe, and who seem to think that decency is satisfied, not when mistakes are foreseen and avoided, but when blunders are somehow retrieved. Badly though the Government have managed in the past, however, we are not among those who think that we must fly to new rulers just because our present rulers fail. We want to know fist what the other rulers would be like. Frankly, we see no possible others who ought to be trusted at the moment. If only Mr. Lloyd George would state a coherent set of political doctrines by which he means to be guided, and by which test he asks to be judged, we should have much better hopes of the present Session than we can pretend to have now. It is one of the greatest ironies in our history that a Prime Minister who has a power of speech, a skill in strategy, and a personal magnetism beyond thos3 of other men should constantly find himself in trouble because his skill in manreuvre outbalances his liking for straight- forward action. One would think that he might be influenced by the notable example set him by some others, and that by borrowing their simple prescription for conduct he might save all the energy which he has hitherto wasted upon set- tling unnecessary difficulties and bestow it directly upon the managmient of affairs of State. In that case people would. trust him, as they want to do, instead of asking themselves continually : What does this mean ? What is the Prime Minister up to now ? He might look, to give specific instances, at the enormous effect produced by Lord Grey of Fallodon's letter—a letter in itself not comparable for vivid or striking qualities with anything that Mr. Lloyd George, might have written. And he might look at Lord Robert Cecil. Lord Robert Cecil writes a letter to Mr. Asquith saying that he hopes Mr. Asquith will be returned to Parliament. In so doing he exposes himself to the charge that he is less than loyal to his own party. He makes some people very angry. But does any one accuse Lord Robert Cecil of playing a game, or running an intrigue, or of trying to serve his own or any purely party interests ? Not a bit of it. However much some people may disagree with Lord Robert Cecil, they know how absurd it would be to breathe such a suspicion as that. We cannot say how strongly we wish that Mr. Lloyd George would try to win for himself in this Session a similar reputation. It would be worth to him more than all his present qualities. In combination with them it would make him irresistible-and he would then deserve to be irresistible.
It is impossible to think of the position of the political parties at present apart from the Paisley by-election, for the effects of that election, end how it may, will be much greater than some people seem to foresee. We shall have to wait till the 25th of this month to know the result, as the rule made at the General Election still holds good— rather absurdly as it seems to us—that a fortnight's grace must be allowed for the collection of the votes of soldiers on foreign service. But the suspense will not blunt the excitement, and it may even increase it. Mr. Asquith has recognized the desirability of importing some clearness into the present political controversies, and has come out plainly as an anti-Labour man. By this we mean of course that he is opposed, not to any proper or reasonable labour claims, but only to the Socialistic programme of the Labour Party. If there was any drift of the remnant of Independent Liberals towards Labour, Mr. Asquith has undoubtedly checked it. He has spoken the pure gospel of Individualism as against Socialism as clearly as Mr. Glad- stone himself might have spoken it. It can hardly be wrong to trace the effect of Mr. Asquith's decision in Mr. Lloyd George's very powerful onslaught on Socialism on Wednesday. If Mr. Asquith should be elected, he will inevitably be the principal figure of the Oppo- sition. Mr. Adamson, the leader of the Labour Party in the House, has never satisfied his followers, and it is said that he would not have been re-elected to the leadership had there not been internal conflicts between the more powerful Trade Unions which ended in his being allowed to stay where he was. He was preferred to a more dashing leader of a divided army. Sir Donald Maclean would in any case make way for Mr. Asquith. Thus, in the event of Mr. Asquith's return, the most commanding personality on the Opposition side of the House of Commons wilrbe definitely opposed to Labour, and as regards the pressing question of the mines will be, as we know, in favour of a scheme hardly distinguishable from Mr. Lloyd George's own scheme. The result of all this, of course, will be a growing antagonism between Labour and the Independent Liberals. Even if Mr. Biggar, the Labour candidate at Paisley, should be elected, that antagonism will be scarcely less. The issue fines itself down to this— Who is to be the leader of the new anti-Socialist forces, or, to put it more generally, which party is to gather strength and power from the growing anti-Socialist feeling ?
We come back to the conclusion that though Mr. Lloyd George still has the ball at his feet, and can keep it there longer than his enemies expected, the turn of the Union- ists will come next. The need for clearness among Unionists is urgent. What do the Unionists in the Government stand for ? After thinking it over, we cannot feel quite sure that we know what Mr. Bonar Law's views are on such primarily important subjects as Ireland, and Nationalization, and a Capital Levy. We do know what Mr. Asquith's views are, and we do know what the views of the Labour Party are. This is most unfortunate, for it is fairly certain that if the nation wants its affairs managed not in the way demanded by Labour but on individualistic lines, it will turn not to Liberalism but to the old firm, the Unionist Party. We have very little doubt ourselves that the present Session will end in swaying the country strongly against Socialism. Unionists must make ready. Ambiguity is fatal. Labour as a party looks less strong than it did a few months ago. For our part, we neither dread nor regard as unlikely the return of a Labour Party some day, but, judging from facts as they are, we cannot think that the Labour Party is advancing, in spite of some superficial signs to the contrary. The internal jealousies of the party never disappear, and the great expansion by which many brain-workers have been taken in satisfies a grandiose ambition but does not make for singleness of aim. Look at what has happened in Australia, where Labour was undone by what seemed to be its success. Australian Labour is now divided into the orthodox Labour Party, the followers of Mr. Hughes, and the Independent Workers of the World. So, we think, it is likely to be with British Labour now that it is being praised equally by Lord Haldane and Lord Fisher, and is adopting as Parliamentary candidates men who have absolutely nothing fundamental in common with it.
Previous page
