TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE SITUATION.
THEpolitical crisis which developed during the past week still oppresses the nation. Mr. Asquith's statement on compulsion and recruiting, which was to have been made on Tuesday, and was then put off till Wednesday, has finally Been postponed till next Tuesday, when the House will re- assemble. While the fate of the Ministry is hanging in the balance great reticence of comment must be observed by those who, like ourselves, hold that at the present moment a beak-up of the Coalition Cabinet would be fraught with dire evil to the country and to the cause for which we and our Allies are fighting. But though we are most anxious to avoid saying anything which can embarrass the Prime Minister and his colleagues in their supremely difficult task, zhere are one or two general propositions which can be use- :n:11y set forth.
As our readers know, we have always favoured compulsion oa the fairest, the most democratic, and the most efficient way of getting the men who are required for the fighting line. 1, however, it can be shown that insistence on the principle of compulsion at the present moment would break up the mity of the Ministry, and so the unity of the nation, we are bound to say that the price would be too heavy. If the issue were that the Coalition Government could only be maintained by a declaration that resort should never be had to oampulsion, we should of course refuse absolutely to agree to amy such arrangement. But if the demand is that the powers oonferred by the existing system of compulsion must first be exhausted, and a further effort be made, on the one hand, enlarge the system of voluntary enlistment, and, on the ether, to free men for active service who are at present marked resi " indispensable," then we say, though with deep regret that a simple acceptance of the principle of universal compulsion should not have been found possible, that we would far mther endorse this compromise than witness the destruction of the Ministry. In our opinion, Ministers would be running peat personal risks and taking a very heavy burden of nosponsibility in endeavouring to get the men who are ad- mittedly required under such conditions of compromise as -.those we have named. If, however, they are willing to take that heavy responsibility, it would, we hold, be unwise to Isrce upon them what we consider a better system. It is all -sexy well to abuse compromise, and to rail at it as if it were an evil per se. That is the mere cant of opposition. No Body of men, whether small or great, will ever be able to act together without compromise in some shape or form. We may be perfectly certain that any Ministry which took the *ice of the present Ministry, if it were to break up, would at once have to shape its action on a foundation of compromise. You are not going to get rid of compromise by turning Mr. Asquith out of office.
it is undoubtedly true as an abstract proposition that too great a sacrifice may be made for unity. It is quite easy to imagine circumstances where the pursuit of national unity might lead to national paralysis. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are many great and signal advantages in lessessing a War Ministry which, as long as its members agree among themselves, cannot be thwarted by outside influences. In this connexion we may note that one of the chief difficulties experienced in maintaining unity is due to the unfortunate way in which the present crisis has arisen. hough by far the greater part of those who demand corn- Tilsion demand it because, like ourselves, they genuinely aelieve in its merits, there are others, and especially those who clamour for it loudest in the Press, who notoriously oire much less for compulsion than they do for breaking up the Coalition. In a word, they value compulsion chiefly as a Bludgeon with which to destroy the Coalition, or rather Mr. Asquith, And here we reach a very curious and very difficult aspect of the situation. A good many of the opponents of compulsion, especially among the Labour Party, could and would be persuaded to agree to it if it were not for this fact. They are rendered stubborn by the feeling that the most aocal and obvious portion of the cornpulsionists hate the ?rime Minister much more than they love National Service. they are determined, as they put it, that they will not be milled by a Newspaper King or submit to compulsion just because the Daily Mail has demanded it. No doubt this is on exceedingly illogical position, but it is a very human one, and at any rate one which cannot be ignored. Clearly, 5 the stubborn persons in question took a really wide view, they would judge the matter solely on its merits, and not allow a thing good in itself to be spoilt by bad advocates. Unfortunately, however, there are always a good many people who cannot easily adjust themselves to this standpoint. Another consideration with which we must deal has often been touched on in these columns. It is the absence of any alternative Ministry. The politicians with the best brains and of the greatest influence in the country are at present in the Cabinet. No one can pretend that outside it a body of men can be found more capable of conducting the affairs of the nation. That being so, any Cabinet which succeeds the present one would have to be composed largely of the same elements. To meet this objection the Cabinet-wreckers tell us that it would be a great advantage to have a Cabinet com- posed purely of Unionists. We wholly disagree. We should look with the utmost alarm, and so we believe would the nation, on a return to the party system of government during the war. Again, it is only by the inclusion of a large number of Liberals in the Ministry that certain elements in the Liberal Party can be prevented from falling away and adopting an attitude towards the war which might prove most dangerous. Does any one in his senses wish to see Sir John Simon and the forces he represents in the House of Commons immensely strengthened at the present moment I Yet that must unquestionably be the result of a purely Unionist Government. But if a Coalition Government is to be maintained in some shape or other, why get rid of the present Cabinet I A great many people of various shades of opinion will no doubt answer : "It will be well worth while to turn out the present Government, because we can in this way get rid of Mr. Asquith, who is the chief obstacle to a more vigorous prosecution of the war." There could be no greater mistake. Mr. Asquith has plenty of faults as a politician and plenty of bad marks on his ante-war record, but we have no hesitation in saying that his departure from the Ministry would be a far greater cause of weakness than of strength. As we pointed out last week, he has won the confidence of his Unionist colleagues, and he is the only statesman living to-day of whom we can say with certainty that he can bridge the gulf between the two parties. It is folly to think that anything would be gained by throwing him to the wolves of a restless, reckless, and irresponsible Press.
Once more, we are convinced that the first and greatest need of the hour is to keep the Coalition Government in existence. That being so, it is the first duty of the members of the Government to hold together as long as such holding together does not involve some scheme or policy which will weaken our conduct of the war. Surely it cannot be impos- sible for them to make mutual concessions which will enable the Government to hold together. The best advice we can give the Government is : Have confidence in the British people and do not fear the newspapers, or at any rate a mere section of the newspapers, for we must never forget that the great majority of the Press, London and provincial, are, like the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express, to name only two, heartily with the Government.
No outside influences are strong enough to destroy the Ministry. If it falls, it will fall from within. But it will not fall. Of that we are convinced. The crisis will have passed before our next issue is in our readers' hands. —
Previous page
