Letters to the Editor
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our " News of the Week " paragraphs.—EL SPE^rAro3.1 DECEMBER .1916; MR. .ASQUITH AND MR. BONAR LAW.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In view of the prominence which you have given, from time to time, to the charge which has been brought against my father in regard to his action in December, 1916, you will Dot, I am sure, grudge me the space to make some observations upon it. Since the charge was never brought to his notice in his lifetime, Bonar Law, it is obvious, was never able to answer it.
In the first place I would observe that Mr. Spender's account of the fall of the Government in 1916, as it appears in the Life of Lord Oxford, is not history. It is a partisan account written by a contemporary, which may, certainly, be submitted in evidence but which cannot, it is equally certain, be represented as a final judgement. I do not impute to Mr. Spender the slightest dishonesty, but it is obviously ludicrous for his account to be regarded, as Mr. Gardiner regards it, as a final verdict.
Of Mr. Gardiner's article which appeared in last week's Spectator, I would only suggest here that his argument is vitiated by one misstatement of fact and by one error in logic. Mr. Gardiner says " Asquith was led to believe that his Conservative colleagues had come down on the side of Lloyd George when the precise contrary was the fact." It is difficult to see how Mr. Gardiner reconciles this sentence with the plain statement which occurs in Lord Crewe's Memorandum, which Asquith embodied in his Memories and Reflections : " His (Bonar Law's) message was delivered curtly, but in further conversation it was implied that the demand of re- signation was not made in Mr. Lloyd George's interest but that the Government might be reconstructed."
As to Mr. Gardiner's logic, he writes that Asquith would not have fallen but for the fact that he " was never shown the terms of the Resolution passed by his Conservative colleagues on the Sunday morning." Lam not here concerned with the question as to whether the Resolution was or was not shown to Asquith, but if we assume that it was not shown, what pre- cisely would have happened ? Asquith, it is true, would not have given another exhibition of that apparent vacillation and instability of purpose which his critics attributed to him. He would have resigned immediately (on the Sunday instead of on the Tuesday), Mr. Lloyd George would have been asked to form a Governnent, and the Government would have been formed. Whatever may be doubtful about the Resolution, I have never seen questioned the fact that it demanded, and intended, the resignation of Asquith and the Government. Are we to suppose, then, that Mr. Lloyd George would have been unable to form on Sunday a Government which he was perfectly able to form only a few hours later ?
It is somewhat curious that in this bland accusation which is brought by Mr. Gardiner and other journalists of the same high-minded school against Bonar Law, there is never any suggestion of a reasonable motive to account for the supposed actions of the latter at this time. Presumably no man is ever without some sort of a motive, and it is difficult to see just what Bonar Law was aiming at when he perpetrated what Mr. Gardiner so charmingly describes as " one of the darkest blots on the pages of history." Was he seeking for himself higher Office than that which he held ? Was he endeavouring. to strengthen his leadership of the Conservative Party by the destruction of Asquith ? Or was he seeking to destroy Asquith from motives of pure malice ? If he hoped to advance himself at Asquith's expense, it is certainly strange that Bonar Law should have reached, even at the eleventh hour, an accommo- dation with his victim. For the agreement which he made with Asquith and which Asquith, for whatever cause, subse- quently repudiated, could only have resulted in thwarting the ambitions which, on this hypothesis, BOnar Law may be sup- posed to have nourished, in weakening his leadership by main- taining in Office the man whom his Party disliked and dis- trusted, and in saving the position of one against whom, we must assume, he nursed an ineradicable and inexplicable malice.
Bonsai Law's action, in short, cannot possibly be recon- ciled with any sinister intent on his part. And indeed his motive was a very simple one—to strengthen the Government by giving Mr. Lloyd George a greater share of authority while at the same time retaining Asquith as the head of the Govern- ment.' Bonar Law, it is true, did not regard Asquith as indis- pensable (it would, indeed, be hypocritical to pretend that lie had any great opinion of Asquith), but he did believe, rightly or wrongly, that Asquith's name had a certain national value, and that he should remain, if it were possible, Prime Minister.
I hope in the future to be dealing more fully with the events of December, 1916, and to present the facts of the case—not, perhaps, as they were, but as they seemed at the time to Bonar Law. And here I would only add, if I may be permitted to do so, one word of warning to those who read the Life of Lord Oxford, or Mr. Gardiner's comments upon it, in innocence and without a full knowledge of the facts. To Mr. Spender and to Mr. Gardiner as well the whole issue is a personal one. They make no allowance for beliefs which were held sincerely (and, if they like, mistakenly) by Asquith's critics. They allow to his critics no motives save those which have their origin in ambition, malice or injured self-esteem, and the possibility that these men, too, may have been actuated by their own view of the public good seems entirely to have escaped them. Asquith, it is true, had little regard for Bonar Law's intellectual powers. Bonar Law, for his part, indulged no great respect for Asquith's character. Either man, right or wrong, was entitled to his own estimate of the other, but it is surely intolerable that contemporaries who have, and can have, no complete knowledge of the facts, should attack not the judgements of these men or the consequences of their actions, but their motives, in the manner of which Mr. Spender and Mr. Gardiner have been guilty.
I am not blind to the comical aspect of these solemnly ex cathedra judgements, delivered with so pontifical an assurance against one of Bonar Law's known character and reputation. It may be expedient, nevertheless, to point out to the unwary some of the more obvious absurdities contained in them.-1 am, [Mr. Gardiner, to whom Mr. Law's letter has been sub- mitted, writes : " I respect Mr. Law's concern for his father's reputation ; but I am concerned only with the facts. The central fact is not in dispute. Mr. Bonar Law did not show the resolution to Mr. Asquith. Why ? He had left the meeting of the Conservative Ministers and shown it to Sir Max Aitken (Lord Beavcrbrook) who was waiting in an adjoining room. What happened is told by Lord Beaverbrook in Politicians and the War. The resolution could, admittedly, be read in two ways. The second paragraph, taken alone, could only be construed as a censure on Mr. Lloyd George and an invitation to Mr. Asquith to reconstruct the Govern-, ment and bring Mr. Lloyd George under control. The third paragraph, taken alone, appeared to be a prelude to Mr. Asquith's deposition. Which reading represented the real intention of the meeting ? The answer to that question is provided in Lord Beaverbrook's description of what had happened, presumably based on Mr. Bonar Law's own communication to him on emerging from the room. ' It became rapidly apparent,' he says, that Bonar Law stood alone.. . . The dominant note of the meeting was hostility to Lloyd George.' If that is so, what doubt could there be about the purpose of the resolution ? Lord Beaverbrook Says Mr. Bonar Law's colleagues laid the stress on the second paragraph ; Mr. Law laid the stress on the third. Lord Beaverbrook himself had no doubt. He took, he tells us, an alarmist view of what would happen if Asquith saw the second paragraph. He might well do so. It would have blown the intrigue which he had organized to fragments. Perhaps he communicated his alarm to Mr. Bonar Law. In any case, Mr. Asquith was not permitted to see the resolution. Its purport was conveyed to him by Mr. Bonar Law, who, on Lord Beaverbrook's own statement, read into it an intention precisely contrary to that of his Unionist colleagues:1' -
Previous page
