TOPICS OF THE DAY.
WHAT WILL HE DO ?
THE long speech which the Prime Minister delivered i n the House of Commons on Monday leaves in the mind of the nation a series of huge queries. What will the Prime Minister do to give his theories shape ? Will he, now that he has evidently drawn up a programme, try to lead the nation to accept it, or will he, as he has too often done in the past, wait for the nation—or rather for the group of people who look least contented or shout most loudly at the moment—to dictate to him ? Will he do anything during the recess to reduce the enormous expendi- ture by the Departments which at present is driving the country to ruin ? All we can say in answer to these questions at the moment is that the Prime Minister's sketch —for it was nothing more—of his intentions was good. After reading the speech most carefully, we can find nothing in it that ought not to commend itself to all moderate men. If we confess to misgiving, as we cannot help doing, it is because Mr. Lloyd George has over and over again given the nation words when it expected deeds. But let us not look upon the future too gloomily through remembrance of the past. It is a satisfaction, so far as it goes, that the Prime Minister's programme, for all its vagueness, was on thoroughly sensible lines. Great Britain will have everything to gain and nothing to lose if only the Prime Minister will and can carry out his schemes. No doubt the speech has had a " bad Press." There has been a volley of condemnation. In our opinion, however, the critics have been less than fair to the speech on its merits. Lord Northcliffe's papers took the line of never giving Mr. Lloyd George a chance. Before the speech was made they drew up an ideal bill of contents for it, naming things which they knew the speech could not possibly contain; and then roundly condemned the speech because it did not satisfy the test. Incidentally this method had the disadvantage that it tended to spoil what Mr. Lloyd George sincerely enough -tried to say about the need for thrift and for saving ourselves by our own hard work. Insistence by Lord Northcliffe's papers on the necessity of cutting down expenditure has day by day been very useful and cogent, and it is a pity that these papers cannot somehow contrive to let every voice which is saying the same thing help to swell the chorus of good advice to the country. It is really too late for the Times to discover that the Prime Minister is an opportunist ; and just as the discovery is belated, so is the occasion for harping on it unfortunate.
Such hopes as we have that Mr. Lloyd George's in- tentions will mature into a policy sufficient to save the nation from bankruptcy or starvation are founded on the fact that he is plainly alarmed. The whole of his speech proves that. He dwelt with dazed wonder on the appalling figures of our Debt and of our means of meeting it. He reiterated that we could be saved only by much greater production. The usual expedients of trying to buy off a nasty-looking group of critics here, or smooth away a frievance there, by some remedy which looked ahead no urther than the end of a man's nose, were absent from the speech. He did not talk about the "Profiteering" Bill. He did not pretend that the fine or imprisonment of a certain number of shopkeepers would be a cure for our gigantic ills. He was like a man recovering from drink— the drink in this case of his own rhetoric—who sees the world again soberly and steadily. The decision of the Government not to act on Mr. Justice Sankey's final Report as regards the coal-mines is in every way wise and justifiable. It will be found to be in the interest of the miners themselves as well as in that of everybody else. It is being said, of course, that the Government have gone back on their word, as Mr. Boner Law had pledged them to nationalize the mines. What the Prime Minister said on this subject, however, seems to us quite satisfactory. 'After Mr. Justice Sankey's first Report Mr. Bonar Law undoubtedly promised that the Government would act on the Report " both in the spirit and the letter." But though Mr. 13onar Law's words were not very wisely chosen, they did not promise any such thing as the miners understand by nationalization. The second Report by Mr. Justice Sankey filled in the vague recommendations made in the first Report, or, as Mr. Lloyd George himself said, " interpreted " them. It is with this interpretation that the Government disagree, and they are of course quite entitled to do so. Even if these were not the facts, the issue for the future of the country is so terribly grave that it would be inexcusable for a Government to say that they must sacrifice the whole nation to the words of Mr. Bonar Law. If Mr. Bonar Law felt that the Prime Minister misrepresented him, it would of course be open to him to leave the Government. Or, again, if he conscientiously felt that he had really given a pledge and he challenged the Government, there could be an appeal to the nation. But evidently Mr. Boner Law thinks nothing of the sort. We have no doubt, therefore, that Mr. Lloyd George's explanation of what Mr. Bonar Law meant was quite correct. What the Government now mean to do, so far as one can judge, is to adopt more or less the scheme put forward by Sir Arthur Duckham. There is a great deal in Sir Arthur Duckham's scheme that was not mentioned by Mr. Lloyd George. In so far as the Government intend to purchase the mineral rights for the State, to raise a fund for the improvement of conditions in the mining villages, and to amalgamate mines in certain areas in order to reduce waste, they are following the Duckham proposals. It may or may not be that the Prime Minister intends to follow Sir Arthur Duckham further in having the royalties valued on the Death Duties basis, in creating a Ministry of Mines, in restricting profits in order that two-thirds of the surplus above an amount necessary to pay a 6 per cent. dividend shall go towards reducing the price of coal, and so on. As we have said, the Prime Minister's speech throughout was only a sketch, and in dealing with the coal- mines he was particularly sketchy. It is good, neverthe- less, to be saved from nationalization in the full sense. All experience shows that the workers would be no more content and no better off under the management of a bureaucracy than under private management. Almost certainly they would be worse off. Besides, the maximum of contentment could be reckoned on only if the miners were ready to recognize such nationalization as Mr. Justice Sankey recommended as a perfectly satisfactory solution of all their troubles. The extremist leaders, however, have made it obvious that this would not happen. They have announced that they would regard coal nationalization as only a step towards the general syndicalization of industry. In these circumstances it is an enormous relief to find that the Government, though their policy is by no means unenlightened or unsympathetic towards the miners, have a sense of responsibility to the whole community.
Then as regards trade policy, it is a wise decision to remove, with a few exceptions, all restrictions on imports on September 1st. The chief need is to restock the national larder and to fill up the depleted supplies of raw material. Of course we are all agreed that industries which are essential to the safety of the nation must be carefully guarded. But when every necessary provision has been made in that respect, the only thing that really matters is to prevent prices being artificially kept up by refusing to accept imports that foreign countries are perfectly ready to send us. All our shelves are nearly empty. The part of wisdom is to throw open every road and channel by which they can he restocked, at all events till the restocking is complete. Some popular orators have been telling their audiences, who may or may not have been stupid enough to agree with them, that all the talk about scarcity was moonshine, as they had only to look at the crowded state of the docks to see that there was plenty of food and materials ! Every one knows that, owing to the want of means of transport, there is great confusion at the docks, and supplies which have recently been landed are waiting in masses to be taken away. But this congestion of the things we all require is, alas ! purely local. To take it as a sign that there is enough in the country is rather like saying that a milkcan and a loaf of bread outside the door of a house are proof that the house must be already full inside. We call to mind the story of the Turkish Court ecclesiastic who during the Turco-Russian War of 1877 descended from a minaret and announced that there was no danger to Constantinople from -the Russians as he had looked all round and had not seen a single Russian. Just so do these popular orators say in effect : " I have looked carefully on the few acres of docks and have seen nothing but food. There is no want. The Government are deceiving you for purposes of their own." No doubt the Prime Minister's promise to deal with dumping and to safeguard key industries gives the Government an opportunity of turning their fiscal policy into anything they like without going back upon their word. In this matter, however, we think we may count. ourselves safe against any folly. The Government are very unlikely to make prices higher by arbitrary embargoes so long as they are satisfied that there is—as there is long likely to be—popular support for every reasonable plan that makes for cheapness. The majority will not complain of unrestricted imports. As the preacher, who in his ardour for Free Trade principles broke his resolution not to talk politics in church, exclaimed, "While the children of Israel were picking up the manna they did not complain that it had been dumped!" The Prime Minister, instead of giving the country a new fiscal dispensation out of his locked box, produced in this case, as in others, only a sketch. Our point, however, is that it was a good sketch. After all that has happened, nothing else could have been seriously expected, and for our part we are content that it shows nothing reckless or impulsive.
The worst that Can be said against the speech is that it should have been delivered at the end instead of the beginning of a Session. Parliament now disappears till October 22nd, instead of having the opportunity of keeping the Government up to the mark in fulfilling the terms of a new programme of the first importance. We trust that when Parliament meets again the House of Commons will make it plain to the Government that they cannot go on being treated as they have been treated lately. Either Cabinet government in the old manner, with direct responsibility to the House of Commons, must be restored, or if, as the Prime Minister tells us, the old system has really become unworkable in these crowded days, some fresh substitute for it, as nearly as possible like it, must be found. The present substitute of the War Cabinet, Which keeps the Prime Minister almost entirely away from the House of Commons, does not work and never will work. We read with much sympathy an article by Sir Frederick Maurice in the Daily. News of Wednesday, in which he pointed out that the notion that the War Cabinet during the war, being freed from a great deal of Departmental work, would be able to think out problems at their ease without being harassed by routine, was based on an illusion. As a matter of fact, the War Cabinet could come to no decision till they had read all the documents on any given subject. In other words, the documents were read twice over, first by the Departments and secondly by the members of the War Cabinet, and when the War Cabinet met they were necessarily invaded by repre- sentatives of the various Departments who had to be called in for consultation. This was not satisfactory for war, and it is even worse for peace. If in future various Depart- ments must be grouped so that a member of the Cabinet May be the representative of two or three cognate Depart- ments, so be it ; but in any case there must be a Cabinet of manageable size, say about twelve to fourteen members, in the old Constitutional way, with the Prime Minister in constant attendance at the House of Commons. Until this is done the Departments will prove too strong for the Government, as they are proving too strong' now. We hear of large staffs being demobilized, but on inquiry it is often found that the staffs, or a large part of them, have been transferred from one Department to another. We are reminded of Rochester, who in Charles H.'s reign was held responsible for the waste of public money. As a result of the inquiry he was removed from his position of First Lord of the Treasury, but was immediately appointed Lord President. It was then that Halifax exclaimed : " I have seen people kicked downstairs, but my Lord Rochester is the first person I ever saw kicked upstairs."
What Mr. Lloyd George said about the great possi- bilities before the country if only Capital and Labour would work together for their common good was -ad.- mixable both in thought and word, especially his remarks on the desirability of giving Labour a financial interest in the increase of output. The blindness of the extreme Labour leaders is beyond belief. Mr. Lloyd George has authorized Bills instituting a forty-eight-hours week and guaranteeing a minimum wage, in accordance with the agreement come to between employers and workers at the Industrial Conference. What a text for Labour leaders to preach from ! Surely this is a Magna Carta of Labour. It is one of the most remarkable things ever achieved by Trade Union representatives. If an observant stranger from another country visited us to inquire into our indus- trial affairs, we should expect him at once to come to the conclusion that of all the methods Labour has ever tried this method was the most successful. It is astonishing to us that the leaders of Labour should not be talking about it in all their speeches and writings, and insisting that the success should be repeated. Instead we hear only too much about new forms of Direct Action— all of which mean a worse scarcity and more misery for everybody.
Previous page
