The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Erening rems,Morning Rems and The Echo. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1918. LLOYD GEORGE EXPLAINS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 45, 21 February 1918, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Erening rems,Morning Rems and The Echo.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1918. LLOYD GEORGE EXPLAINS.

For the cause that Tacks as.-dstanc*, For ike torong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that toe can do,

After Air. Lloyd George's explanation in the House, the political crisis at Home will have collapsed. Although the situation seemed to be serious last week, we do not believe that in the face of the German threat in the West it would have reached tho point of an organised attempt to turn out the Government. In this latest debate, it is stated, Mr. Asquith showed no intention to move a vote of no-confidence. Aβ a matter of fact, he has never shown any inclination to put Mr. Lloyd George out of office. Even if he had moved such a motion and carried it, he could hardly have tcversed the policy of the Government on tho point at issue, the policy of centralised control on the Western front, and the new status of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. For that policy is the deeply considered policy of all the Allies- This is the main feature of the very earnest and very convincing statement Mr. Lloyd George made to the House of Commons. The retention of Sir William Robertson, he said, was incompatible ■with the common policy of the Allies, which was based on the assumption that the Allies had suffered through lack of co-ordination of effort. No one will dispute that assumption, though there are differences of opinion as to the extent to which this lack has injured us. If that policy was right, continued the Primo Minister, no regard for tho value of a distinguished soldier's services should stand in the way of its acceptance. This argument is unanswerable. It is not merely the decision of the British Government that is involved. The " Morning Post" may say that Sir William Kobertson has been dismissed " for no better reason than to satisfy the imperious temper of volatile politicians," but the fact is that Mr. Lloyd George is carrying out the unanimous wish of all the Allies, as expressed in conference in Paris. There was, he told the House, no difference at all between Britain's policy and that of France, Italy, and America. He said the whole question of co-ordination had been considered, that certain proposals had been rejected, and that when the delegations from the different countries met again, after Tetiring for independent consideration of the problem, each delegation pre- ; sented the same scheme, which was tho scheme adopted. This achemo was gone through carefully and alterrd in some respects. In tie light of these facts it is clear that Sir William Robertson was not dismissed. He declined to fall in with the decision of the Paris Conference, and would not accept cither of tbe two positions offered him under the new arrangement.

The most Important features of the now system of control are that it gives the new War Council executive authority and places a mobile reserve at its disposal. It is also important to note that Mr. Lloyd George obtained Sir Douglas Haig's adherence to the scheme at an early stage, that Sir Douglas Haig was preeent when it was considered in Paris, and that he himself suggested alterations in it. The Chief of the Imperial Genera] Staff is to continue to be the military adviser of the British Government; and the British representative in the Allied War Council will be a member of the British Army Council when he is in England. If there is a dispute between the Commauder-in-Chief and the War Council, or there is a difference of opinion between representatives on the War Council, the British Government, advised by the' Chief of the Imperial General Staff, will decide. This will probably be seized on by critics of the scheme as a weak point, for supposing, say, the French Government, acting on the advice of its military advisers, backs up its representatives in a difference of opinion with Britain, what will happen? Probably Mr- Lloyd George did not make himself clear on this point, ox his meaning may have suffered in condensation.

The grave note in thfe conclusion of Mr. Lloyd George'e statement should cloee up the ranks m England. The Allies, he said, are "faced with terrible rea;uties." The enemy ihae rejected. tcrms-wMcb-the whole civilised worlds -2ras

accepted as reasonable., because he is convinced that the Russian collapse has given Tiim power to win and impose Pruseianism forcibly on Europe. It is our business to defeat him, and to that end we must have unity of plan and effort. But unity at home is just as necessary as unity in the field, and we cannot leave this subject without referring again to one cause of disunion in England—the unfortunate' association in I the minds of so many people in England of the Prime Minister with certain newspapers. Our previous remarks are fully borne out by cable messages today. A feature of the debate was eharp criticism with regard to newspaper attacks on Sir John Jellicoe and General Robertson, but far more significant than this is the report that a meeting of the Unioniet Wax Committee "heartily concurred in Mr. Chamberlain's declaration that the Government must sever its connection with Prese influence, and themselves govern." Mr. Chamberlain, who, it must be remembered, was lor some months a member of Mr. Lloyd George's Ministry, is said to have stated that half of Mr. Lloyd George's troubles arose from the fact that the Government were associated ■with certain newspaper proprietors, thereby surrounding themselves with suspicion and distrust. Of course, a Prime Minister is not necessarily responsible for the actions of his supporters in the Press. Mr. Lloyd George cannot be held responsible for the " Daily Mail's" campaign against Admiral Jellicoe, or for the "Times'" deplorable association of Mr. Aequitb with the pacifists. But Mr. Lloyd George might have publicly rebuked his friends in the Press, thereby showing the public that while he could not control their actions ho could dissociate himself from them. Unfortunately he has been silent. When the "Daily Mail" attacked the Admiralty, he left it to Sir Edward Carson to rebuke Lord Northcliffe. And the public noted that in spito of that rebuke. Sir John Jellicoe was removed from hie position. People note now that the retirement of Sir Wm. Robertson was preceded by a campaign against him. It is true that the retirement came about through reasons quite outside the NorthclifTe Press, but the association of events is there to impress the unthinking. Mr. Lloyd George has heightened suspicion not only by his silence,.but by giving Lord Northcliffc public positions. At a time like this he should avoid not merely evil, but the appearance of evil. We hope that the "strong representations" that are to be made to the Prime Minister by "his most ardent supporters"—such is a, report cabled to-day—will make Mr. Lloyd George realise that for much of tho sharp criticism be bas been subjected to he himself is partly to blame. It is not merely a question whether Lord Korthcliffc is right or wrong. The point is that he is not popular, that a great number of people, particularly among the working classes, distrust him, and because they believe he influences the Government, do not trust the Prime Minister. If Mr. Lloyd George can remove this impression that he governs with tho assistance of Lord Northcliffe, he will make his path easier in the critical days ahead.