THE POSITION OF THE PRIME MINISTER.
IT is regrettable that the debate in the House of Commons on Monday on the relations between the Government and the Press should have ended so vaguely. The House of Commons has recently displayed the greatest uneasiness at the long series of coincidences between Press campaigns and Government policy. It has even expressed its reprobation in unequivocal words and by those half-articulate signs by which the temper and feeling of the House can easily be read. But in spite of these things, it was apparently felt that Mr. Lloyd George must not be pressed too hard. His critics, not being ready with any alternative Government, were unwilling to risk the accusation that they had snatched the reins from the hands of the man who was driving the coach without having at hand a skilled coachman who was ready to spring on to the box. So long as Mr. Lloyd George rules there can be only one wish in the nation—that he should rule as wisely as possible.
For ourselves, we think that Mr. Lloyd George made a bad mistake in refusing to part, as Mr. Chamberlain requested him to do, with those newspaper proprietors whom he has exalted to office. If he had acted on this advice, lie would have given a pledge of good faith and freed himself from .all misunder- standing. No disparagement of the services of Lord Beaver- brook, Lord Rothermere, and Lord Northcliffe, which for all we know may be every bit as valuable as Mr. Lloyd George represented them to be in his glowing eulogy, would have been involved. Mr. Lloyd George would simply have said in effect to the nation : " I deeply regret to lose the services of men who in my opinion have a peculiar aptitude for the task which I have called upon them to perform, but I see now that so long as they hold these positions the situation will be permanently capable of misconstruction, and I have therefore decided to ask these newspaper proprietors to resign. On the balance of advantages and disadvantages, I recognize that the disadvan- tages are much greater." Instead of doing that, Mr. Lloyd George defended his actions without really justifying them. The heavy atmosphere of suspicion still envelops the Govern- ment, and the Prime Minister will find it much more difficult to rule with popular consent than he otherwise would have done. For let us remember what strange coincidences have happened. Mr. Asquith was removed from office at the end of a long and bitter Press campaign in circumstances which are still hidden in detail from the nation. The Press attacks upon Lord Kitchener took a similar course. So the story goes on. Lord Jellicoe is bitterly assailed in the Press, and suddenly disappears. Sir William Robertson is even more bitterly and grossly assailed, and he also disappears. Mr. Lloyd George has repeatedly declared that in no single instance has he inspired a Press' attack. His denials have of course been uni7 versally and very rightly accepted. But the matter unfortu- nately does not end with those denials. A very pertinent ques- tion remains to be asked. Why did the Prime Minister reward those. newspaper proprietors in whose papers the attacks appeared ? Mr. Lloyd George has said that Lord Northcliffe has taken nothing more than the position of a clerk and is not a member of the Government. But some of Lord Northcliffe's papers published the most scandalous attacks on public ser- vants who could not defend themselves that have been printed during the war, and Lord Northcliffe is not only given employment by the Government, which unquestionably involves a relation of intimacy between himself and them, but is raised a step in the Peerage. It is no doubt true that in em- ploying his peculiar methods Lord Northcliffe has thoroughly patriotic motives. We do not doubt that. What puzzles and pains us is not that Lord Northcliffe should adopt what seemed to him to be the quickest methods of getting rid of men whom he believes to be unfitted to fill important positions, but that the Prime Minister should think it desirable to cultivate a close relation with the people responsible for those methods.
We need not go into the question whether those who have been guillotined were or were not the best men for their jobs. We deal only with methods. The whole story of the removal of Lord Jellicoe is lamentable. No one, we should think, could read it without feeling that Lord Jellicoe had to go because Lord Northcliffe said he must. The incident is wrapped up in explanations about the exclusive Constitutional responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty. But surely it was utterly opposed to all tradition, custom, and seemliness that Lord Jellicoe should have been spirited away without several members of the Government having any knowledge of the transaction. Sir Edward Carson, who might naturally have expected to be consulted, as he knew as much of Lord Jellicoe's record as any man in the country, learned of the dismissal from a conversation overheard at a wayside railway station. What a way. to treat a highly distinguished and gallant public servant ! The ordinary man must have made the comment that only those Ministers who could be trusted not to ipake a fuss were informed of the decision to remove Lord Jellicoe. Such incidents as these have left so deep a mark upon the public memory that the Prime Minister will do well, even though he has not taken the boldest course of all, to prevent all new causes of misgiving about the relations of the Government and the Press. If we may assume, as we do, that Lord Northcliffe thinks he is saving the country, then the chief bearers of blame must not be Lord Northcliffe and his assistants, but the Ministers who yield to them. Here we must confess our surprise that Mr. Lloyd George's colleagues in the War Cabinet did not take a stronger course in keeping him on the right lines. It is well understood that the Prime Minister's position, owing to his peculiar political circumstances of semi-isolation, is a very difficult one, but that is all the more reason for blaming those who consent when he feels bound to surrender to a pretentious Press demand. It is not enough for Ministers to grumble and protest privately. It is necessary for them fo strike by resigning if the Press is allowed to confuse the functions of criticism and government, and to try to usurp the second function. In a very practical sense it may be said that the Press is the Prime Minister's party. No Prime Minister could govern without a strong party behind him, and for want of a better one the Prime Minister made a party of the Press. His party has served him very well in this sense : that when he became Prime Minister the unceasing stream of abuse which had poured from a large part of the Press ceased, and was transformed into a friendly torrent. But, after all, every party can be led. No great statesman was ever led by his party. He always led it. Since it seems that Mr. Lloyd George has made up his mind to retain his party, all we ask is that he should lead it strongly and nobly. We set no limits to his powers of persuasion and his magnetic influence. He could, and we hope that he will, tell his Press party that it must support him in doing what 1w thinks right. There must be an end to the suspicions that he falls in with what the Northcliffe Press thinks to be right. Words which Mr. Lloyd George himself used in a famous debate in 1900 may be applied to the situation to-day. Mr. Lloyd George, in speaking of corruption, said that it was not enough to avoid actual corruption, for he imputed that to none of those whose conduct was in dispute. Something more was required. It was necessary to avoid all grounds of suspicion. " What I do say," he remarked, " is that they have given legitimate ground for uneasiness, and, above all, they have established precedents which, if they are followed, would lead to some- thing infinitely worse than anything I have spoken of to-day." If the War Cabinet would carefully guard their secrets in the good old-fashioned way, they could snap their fingers at the Press. If, as we have assumed throughout, the Press is patriotic, it will not want to get rid of Ministers who behave in an obviously patriotic manner.
Let us add a few lines—far too few in proportion to the importance of the subject—about another matter on which Mr. Lloyd George could produce a deep impression upon the nation. Within a few hours of the time when Mr. Lloyd George spoke about drink to the Free Church Council, the nation came into possession of the latest ' U '-boat figures, which are worse than any for some weeks past. In his speech to the Council Mr. Lloyd George took great credit to the Government for the manner in which the consumption of alcohol has been reduced. " I will tell you more," he went on. " Bread has not been rationed, but if ever there be such a need in this country that you have got to choose between bread for the children and beer for any of their parents, you will find ne hesitation on the part of this or any other Government:' Instead of saying, however, that the time had come for facing this question finally, Mr. Lloyd George declared that there was no deficiency of essential food at present, and there probably never would be. We must remind him of what he said earlier in the war. He then said that we could not afford a drink bill of 160 millions. The drink bill is now over 250 millions. This is not a question for the duration of the war only--rthough it is mainly that—but a question for the future. How are we to compete with the great communities on the other side of the Atlantic which are ridding themselves of this enormous burden ? We shall compete with them at an enormous disadvantage. If only we could eliminate private profit from this business after the war, we should have done the very least that is necessary. Will not Lloyd George take the lead ?
Previous page
