ME. ASQUITH.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 111, 12 May 1910, Page 3

ME. ASQUITH.

1 » — IN PARLIAMENT. HOW HE APPEARS TO THE YOUNGER MEN. AN INTERESTING SKETCH: Two 3'ears ago the struggle between the two Houses of Parliament was foreshadowed To-day the drama begins in earnest with the introduction by the Prime Minister of the resolutions dealing with the right^of the House of Lords to veto legislation (writes "A New M.P." in the Daily Mail). Is the issue artificial, or is it a real and inevitable struggle between the popular and hereditary principles? Whatever the true answer may be, the importance of the event «an hardly be over-estimated. But if the occasion is absorbing in its importance — and if, indeed, it is a revolution that is impending and not a natural evolution — hardly less - interesting is the character of the leader of the attack. Parliament, platform, the Council Chamber — he has his part to play as leader in each arena. How does his personality strike the younger men who see and hear him in the House? The first picture is that of Mr. Asquith as he . stands by the box on the table opposite the Treasury bench in the House of Commons. A figure of medium height, upright, with feet planted apart, a broad back and shoulders, and a large head with whitish-grey hair set firm upon them. Such is the first impression to anyone who watches him from behind. Viewed from in front, he is facing the Opposition squarely and ready to speak to them with force and directness. The matter and the style of -the Prime Minister in speaking correspond closely with what might have been anticipated from his attitude. He may, on some later occasion, have to modify or withdraw a statement, but that statement when made is direct and unambiguous, just, indeed, as would be the withdrawal. His argument may or may not tarry conviction, but it is clear and it is logical. As with the thought, so with the speech. Seldom metaphorical, it is nearly always concise. Not subtle, it is often trenchant. Above all, it is admirably expressed. The whole equipment is a fitting medium for expressing a personality that has in it little of sentiment — not to mention passion — but much store of geniality. MR. ASQUITH'S DIRECTNESS. , The whole picture is the more striking because of the contrast with the Leader of the Opposition. The two are not opposites — but they are very unlike. Superior in directness and force, Mr. Asquith has not the quickness or the subtlety of his opponent. Less versatile, his intellect goes more directly to the point; it does not play round it and illuminate it on its various sides. Thus different occasions give each his advantage. Many members of the last Parliament will remember Mr. Balfour's speech in the debate upon old-age pensions. They will also remember the great effect of the opening words of Mr. Asquith's reply. Mr. Balfour's speech had been illuminating, he said, in nearly every respect but one — the way in which he intended to vote. And it will be remembered that Mr. Balfour, as a matter of fact, did not vote, but walked out. Still more memorable is a debate when Mr: Balfour was Prime Minister. The shilling corn duty had been taken off. Mr. Balfour had to face the malcontents on his own side as well as a confident Opposition. On that occasion his amazing adroitness in debate enabled him not only to save the situation, but to do so — for tho time being — triumphantly. It was an achievement which Mr. Asquith. might not have been able to perform. AS A PLATFORM SPEAKER. As a platform speaker Mr. Asquith is less effective than in the House of Commons. The qualities needed for each purpose are the very same, but the proportions in which they are required are different. It is not a difference of kind, but of emphasis. The cause is to bo found partly in th& nature of the occasion, partly in the character of the audience. Both these considerations affect the direct influence of Mr. Asquith on his audience. At a public meeting his essential geniality is not apparent to the mass of the audience", and to this: fact may be due the general impression that he is an austere man — a ludicrous travesty of the facts. In the absence, however, of any personal bond between a speaker and his hearers, a crowded audience is moved by passion and inspiration. There is little of either in Mr. Asquith. Hence, though place and occasion may combine to rouse enthusiasm, it is never ; spontaneous and overmastering. The-clear-cut phrases and incisive logic are always good to hear, always good to read when reported. But they have not their most suitable form in a public meeting. In the House of Commons it is different. A second-reading debate may j differ largely from a discussion in ' Committee, but, whichever may be the order of the day, argument is welcomed more than declamation. The audience, listless in hearing loose generalities, is always ready to appreciate concise, cogent, and virile argument, and in such qualities the Prime Minister is preeminent. Even here the absence of any passion diminishes the effect, bv|t the diminution is not bo great. Moreover, the absence of such an appeal is almost made good by the support which is evoked by the personal feelings of affection, and Tespect with which he is regarded by his own followers. THE NEED FOR SUPPLENESS. It is a difficult task that is now set before Mr. Asquith, the more so because it is novel. How he will perform it only the event can prove and only his more intimate colleagues can accurately foreshadow. The onlooker can only conjecture the elements of strength and weakness. Of weakness first. The Liberal and Labour Parties are distinct. The difference .between them may, in theory, be one of kind, but so far as immediate politics are concerned it is a difference of degree only. But the possible points of conflict between the Liberals and the Nationalist members are important. The need, therefore, for suppleness (using the word in its beet sense) and for sympathetic relations with them is urgent. In this respect the Prime Minister seems wanting, as also in sympathy to-

ward views which he does not himself hold on certain matters when they are presented to him by some of his own followers. It is difficult also to resist the conclusion that Mr. Asquith would not of his own choice have taken certain lines of action suggested by his more adventurous colleagues, but has been willing to acquiesce in their action. On the other hand, the strength of Mr. Asqiuth's position is very great. By many Liberals he is regarded as a "safe" man, and even to those who are in favour of an advanced policy it i& manifest that the action of the whole party must be united in face of an Opposition much stronger than it was in the last Parliament. He has, therefore, the strength that is possessed by the "homme necessaire," a strength none the less great, because history has often shown that tha necessity has existed more in the opinions of men than in fact. Moreover, he would not cling to office, a fact which, serves as a useful warning not to go too far to those who might wish' to take advantage or drive hard bargains. The position of a man, with its strength and weakness, can be often analysed in view of his character and history. It is no such analysis of the ■frime Minister that has been attempted, but only a sketch of the traits of which such an analysis might reveal the causes. It is no Cromwell who is here; no. Gladstone ; but yet a man of eminent parts and qualities. What verdict will the historian pass on the occasion and on the man?