Lord Grey on present-day politics

DA

Grey
Present-Day Politics

Ex Libris
C. K. OGDEN <

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

LORD GREY

ON

PRESENT-DAY
POLITICS.

Observations made in the

month of January,

1922.

THREEPENCE.

LORD GREY

ON

PRESENT-DAY
POLITICS.

Observations made io the

month of January,

1922.

LIBERAL PUBLICATION DEPARTMENT,
42 Parliament Street, London.

OBSERVATIONS

ON

PRESENT-DAY POLITICS

By Rt. Hon.

VISCOUNT GREY of Falloden.

VVTHKX I left the House of Commons in
1916, I entertained for personal reasons
the wish to be free not to undertake further
political obligation, with the intention of stay-
ing at my post till I felt I could no longer
be of use there, or until circumstances set me
free. That I did ; and the time came when I
left office with the rest of the first Coalition
Government. For two years, till the end of
the war, I took no part in political life. After
that tor some time I did no public work except
in connection with the League of Nations, and
such other work as I did was done at the request
of the Government.

A Time of Danger.

Then why do I depart from that attitude
now r I do it because, since the last election,
tRere has been a House of Commons which ha.s
allowed any apparent -caudal, however great.

4 I'HK.SKNT-UAY POLITICS.

to remain unexposed, which has allowed any
policy, however extravagant, to go on un-
checked, which has allowed any inconsistency,
however flagrant, to take place without calling
the Government to account, and because we
have had a Government in power which has
taken full advantage of that licence allowed
it by the House of Commons. If that state
of things is repeated after the next election it
will be. a danger and a disaster to this country,
and it is incumbent on any man who feels that
danger, now that there is an election in pros-
pect, to, make his opinion known for what it
is worth; and where should I make it known
better than on a Liberal platform ?

In the years I have taken no part, or little-
part, in public life, I have not been conscious of
any separation of opinion from old colleagues
or from the party, and it is most of all con-
genial to me to express my opinions now on the
same platform with those with whom I had
previously worked, and particularly with Mr.
Asquitb. I suppose if any of us who have been
for many years Cabinet Ministers were to write
down the name of the colleague who was most
ready to allow any of his colleagues to get the
credit, the whole credit, it may be. for any
success, who was most ready to come to the

PRESENT-DAY POLITICS. .)

assistance of a colleague when the colleague
needed assistance, who was most readv, even
uninvited and unasked, when there was the
responsibility for any mistake to take upon
himself that responsibility, or, at any rate, to
share it to the full, though none of it might
have been due to his own personal action — all
of us on this platform who have been Mr.
Asquith's colleagues would put his name first.
If we were asked that question that would be
the reply, and no one who has been among his
colleagues knows the truth of what I have said
better than the present Prime Minister.

True and False Co-operation.

I believe that it is absolutely essential to
restore wholesome, straightforward politics in
this country, and that the first thing for us to
do is to resuscitate, strengthen, and revive the
Liberal Party. But the times are such, and
parties have been so shaken by the events of
recent years, that personally I welcome the co-
operation of any man outside of the Liberal
Party who feels, us we do, the necessities of
the situation. Lord Robert Cecil has spoken
publicly of his agreement with me, and I
should like to do the same as to my agree-
ment with him. On Free Trade we have never

1023334

() I'KKSKNT-DAV POLITICS.

been divided, We have- been acutely divided
in past years on Ireland, on questions such as
the Disestablishment of the Church and re-
ligious education in the schools. That question
of denominational education forms no part o.
politics to-day ; the Irish question, we hope, is
settled, and Lord Robert Cecil is one of those
who have accepted the settlement.

On labour questions, on social questions, and
political questions of the day, as far as I can
judge from his speeches, I find myself in agree-
ment. With any one like that — and there are
others who hold his views — I see no reason why
we should not co-operate : I see every reason
why we should. I can imagine some one clever
on the Coalition side saying: "Then why do
you object to people who belong to different
parties co-operating in the Government if you
are ready to co-operate with somebody who has
belonged to a different party in Opposition ? "
My answer is that there is all the difference
in the world between co-operation which arises
from agreement and agreement which arises
from desire to co-operate. The Coalition
represent the second of those things. They
came into ollice legitimately enough, brought
together by one desire, that of winning the war.
Now in time of peace they, with increasing

PRESENT-PAY POLITICS. 7

difficulty, force, at any rate, an appearance of
agreement with each other because they are
reluctant to separate. And then thev tell us
that there ought to be no party in this country :
nothing but the national interest; no partv
politics. If we are patriots we ought to belong
to no political party except that which supports
them. There should be no party politics —
that is, outside the Cabinet. Partv politics
obviously there are inside the Cabinet. It is
impossible and intolerable that you should have
a Cabinet divided by party politics in itself —
the division so acute that it cannot be con-
cealed from appearing in the newspapers — and
that, while that is so, you should have no oppo-
sition and no party politics outside.

The first need is that the Coalition, which
has now become hollow — " a bubble,"" I think,
is the description given to it by one paper—
should be brought to an end. The speeches
made last week on behalf of the Coalition read
very well. It is pleasant to read them. The
speech of the Prime Minister in particular reads
like the speech of a very innocent man. With
a great many of the words I do not differ. But
those speeches had no relation to fact. Thev
were not representing the policy of the Govern-
ment as it had lx>en : fhev were representing

S I'll KsKNT- DAY POLITICS.

the jjolicy of the Government as it ought to
have been — perhaps as the speakers now look-
ing back upon the past wish that it had been.

Fluctuating Policy.

The Prime Minister said, " Britain has
been steady; she has never wavered ; her policy
has never fluctuated." Never fluctuated in
Ireland ? Never fluctuated as regards Egypt ?
Never fluctuated as regards Bolshevism, and the
trial of war criminals, and making Germany
pay the whole cost of the war ?

As to Ireland, like other Liberals I cordially
welcome the settlement. I welcome the news
of to-day. It goes to show that, provided sho
is left alone, Ireland will work through her
troubles, and, as far as we are concerned, we
want nothing except to see the Government
for once remaining constant in letter and spirit
to the latest phase of their Irish policy. I
differ from Lord Carson and the "Die-hards"
in my view in regard to the settlement ; I agree
with them entirely in their view of the humilia-
tion and the disgrace of the methods by which
that settlement was readied. As one critic of
the Government has said, you should not an-
nounce that vou have got by the throat some-
thing that afterwards you have to take by the

I'KKSKNT-DAI I'OUTU S. 9

hand. NVe never knew the full tacts of the
policy of reprisals : we do kaow that it failed.
To its failure, I admit, we one the present
settlement, but we need not have p.-issud through
that disgrace and humili -ition. The Govern-
ment say it could not have bee if done before.
Quite true, but why;* Because, quite apart
from whether the Irish were prepared to accept
it, the Government declared that anything like
the settlement which they have now made was
impossible and out of the question. The
humiliation is a self-made humiliation.

In regard to Bolshevism, a policy of force
wa> adopted avowedly to destroy the Bolshevists.
Now there is talk of lending them money, and I
gather the present policy is to lend inter-
nationally ten or twenty millions to people
whom you have spent 100 millions in failing to
destroy.

In Egypt the policy of the Government has
oscillated between repression and concessions.
It has oscillated sometimes so rapidly that it
has been difficult at any particular moment to
know which policy they have been pursuing.

Our Relations with France.

Then I come to a matter more serious still

our relations with France. The Prime Minister

10 1'KKSKXT-DAY POLITICS.

seemed to think that the method of transacting
foreign affairs by conference was something
invented by himself. It was practised before
the war. It would have been practised on the
eve of the war if our advice had been listened
to. What has happened under the new
methods of the Supreme Council ? The
Supreme Council has undermined that trust
and confidence which existed between France
and ourselves for so many years. At the
present moment — you can hear it from
people who have been in France, you can read
it in letters in the papers, it is obvious to any
one who has followed the course of events —
there is less confidence, less good under-
standing- between these two Governments
than there has been at any time since
the Entente was made in 1904. A very

serious fact ! That is the most serious fact
in European politics at the present moment.
The Entente was made by Lord Lansdowne
and the French Ambassador in Ixmdon, with
the French Foreign Minister and the British
Ambassador in Paris. It was made by those
methods. It was maintained in the same wav
for years, and along with it was maintained
trust and confidence under which neither
Government rver sprang a surprise on the

IMfKSKXT-DAY POLITICS. 11

other, and in which there was perfect good
faith and close touch between them. The
Supreme Council has destroyed that. It is no
good blinking facts. The Supreme Council
has lately been fatal to a French Prime
Minister, and his successor apparently is de-
sirous to have not so much to do with it.

The re-establishment of good relationship
with France is the most vital thing in European
politics to-dav. lTntil that old trust and
confidence is restored between the two Govern-
ments, no conference, none of those attempts to
reconstruct Europe, will fare well. If that
confidence be restored it will be a starting-
point of security) peace, and reconstruction in
Europe. But, believe me, it will not be
restored by means of the Supreme Council ; and
it is only, as I belie\e, by the more usual, the
quieter, and steadier methods that you will
again get back those good relations which we
ought never to have lost.

The Steadier Methods.

Well, now, I am told, that because I have
criticised the method of dealing with foreign
affairs by the Supreme Council, therefore I am
in favour of secrccv and the old diplomacy,
I suppose you all know what the old diplo-

1 I'ltKSKNT-DAV I'OUTN'S.

niacy is. I don't. I do understand what is
meant by secrecy, and I would just like to say
this, that when I advocated other methods
than the Supreme Council I did not say secret
methods. I advocated methods which should
be quieter and steadier ; but things may be
quiet without being secret. It is not necessary
to be noisy in order to avoid secrecy. I quite
agree that methods before the war could be
improved and adjusted to new. conditions, and
I think undoubtedly you may have more open-
ness than there was in past years.

I do not believe war could have been avoided
by anything we could have done before 1914.
I can see some ways in which the war might
have been precipitated under more unfavourable
conditions than when it came, but "I have
always felt — and, looking back, I feel just as
strongly as ever — that no change in diplomatic
methods, nothing we could have done, would
have prevented the war, because the war could
only have been prevented by there being the
same will to peace in Germany that there was
here. S6 when I say that I think you can im-
prove old methods, don't think I mean that
the war could have been avoided by any im-
proved methods. But secrecy in the form of
secret treaties I have ahvavs been against in

ri!KsF.KT-l)AY 1'OI.lTK's. 1'J

times of peace. I never was a party to making
a secret treaty in time of peace. Indeed, when
the war came there were, I think, two agree-
ments which I had initialled, and which might
have been completed, but for the fact that I had
stipulated that as soon as they were completed
they must be published, and Germany, with
whom they were being made, was doubtful
about the desirability of having them published.

Secrecy of the Supreme Council.

But when I say I want as much openness
as possible in diplomacy, do you think there
has been more openness fn these new methods
with the Supreme Council ? What I complain
of is that in the foreign policy of the Govern-
ment there has been more secrecy than there
was formerly.

You hear a great deal about the Washington
Conference, but you do not get papers pub-
lished to tell what has really passed. In what,
is called the " old diplomacy," where Foreign
Ministers and Ambassadors conversed, records
were kept of their conversations, and very often
those records were published, which explained
to their respective countries exactly the policy
which had been pursued. The new method,
T Understand, is that the British Prime

14 PHKSKNT-n.AY I'OUTH's.

Minister and the French Prime Minister, for
instance, converse together, but we never seem
to have any records of their conversations pub-
lished. We have had all sorts of trouble in
Egypt, a Commission appointed to inquire into
things in Egypt, but we have had no papers
showing what advice was given to the Govern-
ment by the people on the spot, what advice
Sir Reginald Wingate, what advice Lord
Allen by, has given, and what the Government
have said in return. We are told now and
then something upon which the limelight is
thrown very strongly, birt we are given no
Parliamentary papers as we used to have which
explained how our public servants were advising
the Government, what instructions the Govern-
ment were sending, and generally made the
whole course of policy adopted by the Govern-
ment plain and intelligible to the country, so
that they might form an opinion on it. That
we do not have. My criticism of the present
policy, the present methods of the Govern-
ment, is this, that there is both too much
limelight and too much secrecy.

Defects in Foreign Policy.

Mr. As(jiiith ({noted the Attorney-General's
principle of "measures, not men." Hut the

I'RhSKNT-DAY I'OLITICS. 15

colleagues of the Attorney - General liave
spoken quite differently. They spoke not so
much of measures as of the man — the one
man, the only man, or, as Mr. Austen Chamber-
lain savs, the same man. He says it is such an
advantage that in international matters we are
always represented by the same man. Well,
that depends. The same man representing the
>ame policy, and that a good policy, is good.
The same man representing the same policy,
and that a wrong policy, is unfortunate — how
unfortunate depends upon the wrongness of the
policy. ~But the same man representing from
time to time different policies is altogether bad.
It would be better to have different men
representing different policies. There are
drawbacks to that, A different man repre-
senting a different policy may, at any rate,
be trusted for the time that he is in office. But
if the same man represents different policies,
he can never be regarded as reliable, whatever
policy, good or bad, he may be advocating at
the moment.

There has been another misfortune about
our foreign politics. Somehow or other more
than once the trail of domestic electioneering
has got mixed up with international affairs.
That untimely election of 1918 did something

16 PBKNKNT-DAY 1'OI.ITK *.

to impair the peace negotiations which followed.
We have been handicapped ever since by the
part which that election of 1918 and the conse-
quences of it, played in the peace negotiations.
And do you suppose that the other day, when
the Supreme Council was meeting at Cannes
and the whole of this country became engaged
in discussing a February election — discussing
it on pure grounds of opportunism, openly
suggesting as I think was the case, in some
quarters of the Press, that it would be such
a convenient time for an election when the
Prime Minister returned triumphant from
Cannes — do you suppose that was altogether
wholesome for the international discussions
which were taking place there ?

Conferences and the League of Nations.

I have expressed some hesitation as to
whether the Genoa Conference was really a
well-thought-out scheme, and because that was
said I see it stated that I am opposed to all
conferences. The Washington Conference I
have always given the most unhesitating praise-
to, both to the Conference itself and to the
policy of the Government as executed by Mr.
Balfour at the Conference. I think there is
some lesson to be drawn from the success of the

1'HIMCNT-DAV POUTH's. 17

Washington Conference. If these Conferences
are to be a success there must be ample time,
ample leisure, and the men who do the real work
of them had better be men with special quali-
fications for the work, and able to give their
whole time and attention to it. The League
of Nations is a conference. It is a sort of
permanent conference. Well, I have certainly
never been opposed to the League of Nations ;
and even before, the war, when there was
trouble in Europe in 1912, I took an active
part in, and presided over, a Conference of
Ambassadors in London which did adjust some
very difficult questions which, but for that
Conference, might have disturbed the peace of
Europe then. So I say that to show that I
am by no means opposed to conferences, and
that if I have views about the Genoa Con-
ference it is not because I think conferences as
a rule are undesirable.

The Prime Minister complained the other
day that those of us who criticised the Con-
ference he has suggested at Genoa, on the
ground that it may prejudice the League of
Nations, are running the League of Nations as
a little party show. I make these criticisms
iu no party spirit, but I would put this before
YOU — I would suggest it as a point for the

18 I'KKSKXT-DAV I'OI, ITU'S.

Prime Minister, as he says IK- is in favour of
the League of Nations. It is not everybody
who has been in favour of it. It is not everybody
who is in favour of it now. There are many
who say — " Oh ! the League of Nations ! A
very nice idea, but nothing will ever come of
it; it will never be of much use."

What is the object of the Genoa Conference ?
One of its objects is to form a European Asso-
ciation of Nations pledged against aggression
on each other. That is the League of Nations.
What are these faint-hearted people who
have never believed in the League of Nations
going to sav about that ? Thev are going to
say—" After all, we were right ; the League of
Nations is no use ; it is to be put on one side
already, and something new is going to be
formed, which is something like it, but with a
new name.1' And they are going to say — " Is
this something new going to be of any use ? "

Now the Prime Minister says the League of
Nations could not do the job he wants tin-
Genoa Conference to do. The League of
Nations has done one job which the Supreme
Council could »ot do. It has settled the
question of I'pper Silesia, and we hear the
settlement is working well. It is not a thing
to IK- put lightly aside. \Yliy cannot it achieve

I'ltKsKXT-IMY I'Ol.incs. 19

what the Genoa Conference could do ? That I
should like to have explained. One of the
things the Genoa Conference is to do is to deal
with economics. The League of Nations has
already started with a Financial Committee at
Brussels, in which Germany took a part.

The Prime Minister said the United States
would not take part in the league of Nations,
and that there was a chance, at any rate, that
they would take part in the Genoa Conference.
I would have liked, first of all, to ask the
I 'nited States whether they would be prepared
to participate at all in a conference of this
kind, to ask them whether the organizing of
a conference under the League of Nations
would be an objection or not, and only when
you had ascertained that the United States
would not participate in anything organized
under the League of Nations, but would parti-
cipate in some economic conference organized
outside the league of Nations, then, and then
only, would I have gone past the League of
Nations.

Trade and Economy.

Now, I come to a point at home. The
country is not prosperous, and there are a great
many people in consequence who are not happy.
This unemployment question is a very serious

20 I'ltK.sKX'I'-DAV I'OUTHS.

and distressing one, and I agree that there must
be relief of actual distress. You have no
choice for it, and, as measures can be taken by
Local Authorities or by the Government to
relieve actual starvation and distress, those
measures must be taken, but they are only
palliatives, and I agree that the problem of un-
employment, being one which may always recur.
does require the most serious consideration
from the point, of view not only of temporary
relief, but of permanent dealing with it when
it occurs. But I would not believe at this
moment in holding out as the first objective
any great national scheme, for this reason : the
best permanent remedy for unemployment is
good trade. Until you have got trade back to
a condition of normal welfare you will not be
able to gauge what are likely to be the normal
dimensions of the unemployment problem, nor
what amount of normal resources the country
will have to deal with it, and at the present
moment I would not spend time in elaborating
or advocating large programmes on the subject
of unemployment or any other question. I
would concentrate on the one question of
enabling the country to recover its prosperity
by getting expenditure down.

I would have more faith in a Government

I'HKSF.ST-DAV I'OI.I'I 1CS. 21

which came forward and said that for the next
year or two it was going to have no programme
except to concentrate on reducing expenditure.
I believe in that way it would do far more good
than by coming forward with large programmes,
and not concentrating on the one point of get-
ting the expenditure down. Well, the Govern-
ment at last are alive to this question of
expenditure. The Geddes Committee attacks
this problem of expenditure from one end, and
I am not sure that it is the best end. It attacks
it from the point of view of expenditure. lam
not sure that the best end to approach the
problem of retrenchment is not from the point
of view of income. I should very much like
the Government to go into the question of
how much revenue can be raised in this
count rv everv year at the present moment
without trenching upon capital, and without
depressing the springs of industry. Let us
know what is a fair national income, which
can be raised consistent with enabling the
country to recover from the war. I should
have liked if it had approached the question
from that end as well as the other. It .ought
to have been approached long before from
both ends. When I think of all the money
that has been wasted, or worst- than wa.sted.

2% l'IJKsl-;.\T-|)AY POLITICS.

since the Armistice, I cannot, think that the
Government deserves great credit for economy,
or that, they inspire me with great confidence
as to their efforts in the future.

What is a Coalition Liberal?

I cannot define a Coalition Liberal, of whom
Mr. Churchill speaks so highly, but I have an
idea what he is. I will try to describe him.
He is a man who three years ago acclaimed the
Government, and would hear no doubt about
it, when they announced not only that the
Kaiser was to be tried in London, but that the
German war criminals were to be tried and
receive most condign punishment. The German
war criminals have been tried in German v ;
some of them got light sentences ; some of them
have been acquitted ; and, so far as I can make
out, a Coalition Liberal is the man who has
forgotten all that was ever said about

them. Three years ago Germany was to pay
the whole cost of the war, or if not the whole
cost I think the sum named was ^4.0(M) millions ;
and the Coalition Liberal was a man who would
hear no doubt about it, and b.-lieved the
Government was sun' to get it. Well, how
much have we got so far .* I believe we have
not got the expense of the Army of Occupation

1'RKSKXT-DAV POLITICS. J

in Germany covered. One phrase used to be,
on the Government side, that Germany was to
be like an orange which would be squeezed so
hard that the pips would squeak. There has
been squeaking, but there has not been in-
demnity ; and the Coalition Liberal is a man
who seems quite content. Then take Egypt.
There has been trouble in Egypt. The Govern-
ment shuts up some of the people who are
fomenting trouble, and the Coalition Liberal
praises them for their firmness. The
Government lets them out ; the Government is
praised agrain for its adaptability. The

Government shuts them up again or deports

them — well, that is right, too.

What the policy of the Government is in
Egypt at this moment, whether it is on the
tack of repression or whether it is on the tack
of concession, I do not know ; and I fancy the
attitude of the Coalition Liberals is " wait and
see." Whichever it is, it is sure to be quite
right if the Government does it. Well, then,
take the policy towards the Bolshevists. The
Bolshevists were verv wicked people, who were
to be destroyed. Monev was wanted. Fifty
millions the Coalition Liberals would vote for
such an excellent purpose as thi- destroying of
this wicked people. That was not enough. It

121- PKKSKNT-DAY POLITIC*.

came to about 100 millions. " Oh, well, YOU
must spend money for such a good purpose as
that ; the Bolshevists are to be destroyed."
Time goes by. The Bolshevists are still there.
"Oh, well, we must look on Russia with sym-
patliY ; let us lend these people whom we have
been destroying some twenty millions by inter-
national finance." I am not criticising the
policy of doing what is possible to restore
Russia. It is urgently necessary, but I do
criticise the fact that we wasted 100 millions of
money by interfering in that country.

Coalition Liberals and Ireland.

Mr. Churchill gave a picture of Irish policy
in his speech. It did not represent either
present history or past history accurately. But
what is the Coalition Liberals1 attitude upon
Ireland '<* Some time ago Dominion Home
Rule was being advocated as the remed Y for
Ireland. Mr. Asquith advocated it, but to
the mind of a Coalition Liberal that would not
do, that was being brought forward by factious
Independent Liberals. There was crime in
Ireland, very bad crime. What was the Coali-
tion Liberal attitude to that ? Well, that
must be repressed. I have nothing to say
against attempts to repress crime, provided

I'lSKsKNT-DAY POLITICS. J2."j

you do it with the .strong hand of justice.
That was not what was fried. It was the
\\eak violence of reprisals, but, as far as I can
sec, the view taken, the Coalition Liberal view,
would have been that previous Coercion Acts
in Ireland had been tried and failed ; they
must have something different, because reprisals
were quite different to the old Coercion Acts.
The object of the Coercion Acts was that when
a crime was committed an effort was made to
discover the guilty person and punish him.
Under reprisals, when a crime is committed,
if you cannot discover the guilty person punish
somebody or other. The burnings of Cork
were on such a scale that, if perpetrated bv
the forces of the Crown, they were a real
scandal in administration. The Government
was prepared to get at the truth, they ap-
pointed a Commission — the Coalition Liberals,
no doubt, very admiring of the Government's
courage and firmness in appointing a Commis-
sion, and having an inquiry into the whole
matter. But when the Commission had taken
place, the report was never published. It was

withheld from us, and the Coalition Liberals
were equally contented. Time went on ;

crime got worse, the policy of reprisals failed,
the Government came forward with a scheme

) l'KKSI.XT-l)AV I'OUTK'S.

in the very widest and fullest SCUM- ever con-
ceived of Dominion Home Rule — so full that,
rightly, under the agreement, Ireland is called
the Irish Free State; and the Coalition Liberals,
who had agreed with the Government previously
that Dominion Home Rule was impossible, who
had supported reprisals, who had acquiesced in
the hushing up of the report on the Cork burn-
ings, all applauded this last proposal of the
Government as an evidence of statesmanship,
which no other Government could have con-
ceived, and no other Government could have
carried. That is not a state of things which
redounds to the credit of the country. AVe have
reached a settlement, but we have i cached it by
a most humiliating and degrading road. And
when Mr. Churchill goes into the question of
who are the real Liberals, I say that it is not a
question of labels or of terms, but it is a ques-
tion of facts and policy and the conduct of
the Government. I don't care what label is
attached to me ; but the title I am not going
to qualify for is that of Coalition Liberal.
Mr. Churchill says, "All patriotic people
ought to co-operate with the Government."
Co-operate in that series of policies which I
have been describing ! If that is the test of
patriotism, I have not got sufficient political
agilitv to be a patriot.

• HI KSKXT- DAY POLITICS. L2

House of Lords Reform.

The fart is, it is we Independent Liberals who
are a homogeneous party ; the Coalition is not.
They were told the other day that they were in
honour bound — told by one of their own sup-
porters— in honour bound to remain in office
till they had reformed the House of Lords. I
understand that is now postponed till after
the election. I would not state that too dis-
tinctly, because we do not know what else we
may be asked to understand to-morrow ; but
that seems to be the impression. Then that is
the policy which unites them, the reform of the
House of Lords, and which is to unite them for
the future. Are they really agreed about it .'
I know what a Conservative wants in the
reform of the House of Lords." What he wants
is that its power should be restored, so that if
by any chance an extreme Liberal Government
or Radical Government, or even Labour
Government gets a majority at the election,
there shall be a caretaker left at Westminster
who will see that nothing happens, and that the
House is kept in order until another election
takes place.

But is that what the Liberal wing of the
Coalition wants:' I agree that much might be
done to reform the constitution of the House of

°.8 I'KKSKXT-DAY I'OI.ITICS.

Lords, but I do not believe that as long as von
retain the hereditary element as the base of the
Second Chamber you can touch the powers of
the House of Lords as thev arc-. I believe that
the reason why this House of Lords scheme
hangs fire is that the two wings of the Coalition
are not agreed about it. If so, their agreement
is not a real one. It is a hollow one.

The Coining Election.

Now, when we have an election, how art-
people going to vote ? I know »some people
who are going to vote for the Government
because thev think there is no alternative.
That is one sort of vote they will get. I
know at least one person — 1 suppose there
are others — who will not vote against them,
because till the people of this country are
better educated, it is thought they do not
deserve a better Government. But who is
going to vote for them because he trusts them '?
Ask business men — thev do not trust them.
Ask the miners — what have thev to sav about
fluctuations of policy in the matter of decontrol ?
Ask the agricultural interests — we do not trust
them. Ulster considers itself betrayed by them.
The Die-hards do not trust them. The only
question that re-mains to be asked is — do they
trust each other ?

I'KKSKNT-DAY 1'OI.H It s. i

As to an alternative, I agree with Lord
Carson, who said the other day there will be no
difficulty about an alternative. There is more
than one. This cry about alternatives we have
heard before. We heard it between 1895 and
1905, when the Conservative Party was in
office. It was said constantly. The Liberal
Party's great leader, Mr. Gladstone, was gone,
Lord Rosebery had stood aside, Sir William
Harcourf had resigned and died before the
election came. We were supposed to be
divided. There was no alternative. All the
time I remember thinking what nonsense it
was that in England, in Scotland, and even in
Wales there was no alternative. Now, to-day,
as regards alternatives, Wales may be a little
exhausted. I am certain that in England and
Scotland there is no party which, if it were
returned to power — if it had a majority in the
country — would not find personalities perfectly
fit to form an alternative Government.

We have the same situation to-dav as we had

•/

in 1905, when you had a great party pretending
to be in agreement, when thev were fighting on
the subject of tariff reform. Years ago Lord
Beaconsfield said, " England does not like
Coalitions." I used not quite to understand
win. Now I -do understand whv. In wartime.

'30 I'UKSKXT-DAY POLITICS.

when they were united for a single purpose,
tliev were not 1'eallv a Coalition ; thev \\ere
just one body. Now they have remained to-
gether for purposes on which thev are not
united. They are not a Coalition, they are not
a homogeneous party, and they are not a
wholesome Government from the point of view
of politieal principle. Sooner or later we must
have this election, and when it comes I believe
the country will go back to the pre-war con-
ditions of desiring to have a straight contest
between parties who are agreed in principle,
opposing parties holding different principles,
with the object of having again, as we have had
before, a homogeneous Government which can
be trusted not to sway this way and that, but
to adhere to principles and policy which are
known to the country.

IN: s i KAM.KU ,\\ s. WINTERS.

100 copies ... 15s.
500 copies ... 60s.

From thr 1'nhHxliei:

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

Form L9-Series 444

(Baylor a
PAMPHLET BINDER

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
THIS BOOK CARD

University Research Library