BRITISH POLITICS

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 10, 12 January 1920, Page 8

BRITISH POLITICS

POSSIBLE PRIME MINIS-

TERS

LORD ROBERT CECIL AND MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

Let us imagine some British Hip Van Winkle awakening to-day after a moderate slumber—compared with that of his Catskill prototype—of three years (writes the London correspondent of the New York Evening Post). At his club he happens upon a group that is discussing a possible change of Government. "Say what you will in criticism o£ the Prime Minister," remarks somebody, "but you must admit that there is no one to take his place." "That is quite true," comments our resuscitated sleeper, "for everybody is agreed that Asquith is the one indispensablel man." He would then make the almost incredible discovery that it was not Asquith that his friends were discussing, but Lloyd George.

Three years ago you ran the risk of being suspected of lack of patriotism if you hinted that the affairs of the nation could conceivably be in better hands than Asquith's, and the clinching argument against any objections to his administration was that, at any rate, there was nobody in sight who was competent to step into his shoes. It was in the midst af a chorus of such'tributes that a rival brought off a successful coup d'etat, and the indispensable man disappeared from the scene at a few days' notice. The fate of his predecessor should warn the present Prime Minister not to bank too heavily on popular assent to the claim that the nation, cannot get along without him. Some unexpected turn of events may bring about a sudden collapse of his reputation and the equally sudden rise to power of some politician whom he has failed to reckon as a serious competitor. ' NOT LIKELY TO BE AN OUTSIDER.

Unless the next change of Government is revolutionary indeed, there is one safe guide to any speculation about the identity of the Prime Minister who will take ths place of Lloyd George when his time comes. It will be some one who is already a member of one or other of the two Houses of Parliament, and who has taken an active and prominent part in political life. In the British system it would be out of the question for anyone to become Prime Minister who was as much of an "outsider" as regards Parliament as some successful Presidential candidates have been as regards Congress. And, of course, there is no chance here for any " favourite son." Unless a politician is well known the country over he is entirely out of the running for the Premiership. That is to say, he must already be more or less of a national leader whose characteristics are familiar to the general public from Land's End to John o' Groat's.

In the political firmament the star that has been most notably in the ascendant of late has been that of Lord Robert Cecil. It was not until after the armistice that Lord Robert reached the front rank. Up to that time he had been thought of as a man of ability, it is true, but one who, in the event of a change of Government, could not expect appointment to anything better than a subordinate p&st. To-day he is frequently spoken of, by no means exclusively within his own party, as capable of sustaining worthily the responsibilities of the highest place. He has gained this reputation partly by his work in Paris and partly by the grasp of both international and domestic . problems that he has shown since his return from the,. Conference. Somehow he inspires confidence in men ■who do not share his political views, and what the English people are seeking today above everything else is a man in whom they can trust. Like his father, he is a Conservative, but he lacks his father's cynicism, and there is in him a capacity of democratic sympathy which may become intensified as the course of events demonstrates the necessity of a wide departure from the old feudal traditions. One can trace, indsed, in Lord Robert's career something of that process of involuntary self-education which led Gladstone from the " stern and unbending " Toryism of his youth to the championship of the progressive movements of his time.. ■ LORD ROBERT CECIL NO INTRIGUER, Lord Robert Cecil is no intriguer. He pulls no strings and organises no cliques, yet a group of followers is gradually gathering around him. One of the most significant evidences of the influence he has lately acquired was an appeal made to him byname by the Manchester Guardian a little while ago as a man "in high position and commanding general respect," to "speak a few words of truth and honesty about the way things are going in Eastern Europe." "A really sincere and courageous man like Lord Robert Cecil," said that paper, "had only to put one or two straight questions to the Government, and to go on putting them till they were answered, in order to begin at least to clarify an obscure and discreditable situation, and incidentally to add considerably to his already high reputattion." That Lord Robert should be singled out for this appeal by a. leading Liberal newspaper—a paper, too, which in the past has not hesitated to give enthusiastic support to Lloyd George—is an indication of a Temarkable movement of opinion.

The London Nation, too, has lately been writing of Lord Robert in the same strain. It must be noted, however, that this attitude toward him is not universal among Liberals, even, among tho6e who. share the Nation's views of international policy. Some of them say that his internationalism is only talk, and recall that he joined the "knock-out-blow" Government, that as Under-Secretary, at the Foreign Office he defended a foreign policy of which secret treaties formed a part, and that he was the Minister responsible for the rigorous enforcement of the blockade. A Government of which. Lord Robert Cecil was the head would not be a party Government, nor would it be a Coalition of the type with which we have become familiar. It would be a composite Administration comprising several Conservatives of democratic sympathies—men like Lord Henry Bentinck, for instance —together with some Liberals, attracted by hi& internationalism and his hostility to Protection, and possibly with some Labour representatives also. BONAR LAW OR LORD CURZON. If a purely Conservative Administration should come into power —and a reactionary movement, it must-be remembered, is by no means outside the range of possibilities—it would naturally find its chief in either Bonar Law or Lord Curzon. There are persistent rumours that Bonar Law is tired of politics, and is meditating retirement in the near future. Certainly his recent experiences of public life, as the Parliamentary apologist for the Coalition, cannot have been very happy. No such desire for self-effacement is attributed to Lord Curzon, and as a member of the hereditary aristocracy he would secure a following among many to whom Bonar Law still appears some.thing like an intruder upon sacred territory. Amnmj the CcmllUou Mbßwln th« only outstanding figure, other ih#« I4wil

George himself, is Winston Churchill. In sheer ability he has few equals, and his ambition is ready for any venture, yet he is hardly considered seriously as a candidate for the Premiership. He has alienated opinion by the recklessness of his policies, and there would be a general apprehension as to the madcap enterprises to which, the country might soon iind itself committed if he were allowed any greater responsibilities. And, though he is still nominally a Liberal, the rank and file of the party have practically written him off as a Liberal asset, while Labour is vehemently hostile. If there , were a Bolshevik revolution in England Winston Churchill would probably win the distinction of being the first nan to be hanged on a lamp-post in Whitehall. The difficult task of leading the little group of Independent Liberals in the House of Commons has developed in Sir Donald Maclean a political ability for which no one had previously given him credit. His services would give him a claim to an important place in any future Liberal Administration, but he hardly measures up to what is required in the head of a Government. LABOUR TO BE CONSIDERED. Then there is Labour. The railway strike the other day did a good deal to reassure a good many people outside tlis Labour Party who, while generally sympathetic to that party, were afraid it was deficient in the personnel necessary j to carry on the work of national Government. By common consent the Trades Union Committee which undertook so successfully the work of negotiation be- I tween the strike leaders and the Government displayed gifts of sane statesmanship far beyond expectation. Evidently the Cabinet drawn mainly from members of that committee would bear comparison, on the score of competence and public spirit, with any average Ministry representing either of the two older parties. In most speculations about a possible Labour Ministry, Arthur Henderson has commonly been regarded as marked out for its Premiership. Nothing that he has said or done of late has in any way diminished his reputation, but he is no longer the one Labour man talked of in this connection. During tho.last few months J. R. dynes has made an increasingly powerful imprgssion upon members of all parties. He has attracted attention by the intellectual ability of his speeches, by the reasonableness of his attitude on contro- ! verted questions, and by the frankness j and courage with -which he faces the facts of a difficult situation. He has shown more than once a capacity to take long views that is all too rare among Labour leaders. As a propagandist he has several superiors within his own party, but, if non-Labour opinion has to be reconciled to a Labour supremacy, Mr Clynes would probably be able to do more than any one else to inspire public confidence.

There are still living three former Prime Ministers. Two of these are never mentioned in any canvassing ■ of possible Premiers. Lord Rosebery, who more than twenty years ago led a troubled existence as head of an Administration, has long been a spent force in British politics, and he seldom emerges from his retirement to speak on any public question. Mr. Balfour, Prime Minister from 1902 to 1905, is still devoting himself to the service of his country, and every 0r.3 recognises the fine spirit he has shown in consenting to take office during and after the war in an Administration of which he was not himself the head. But, apart from all other disabilities, he is now in his seventy-second year and his strength is no longer equal to sustaining so heavy, a. burden as that of the Premiership. There remains Mr. Asquith. His partisans are eager to see him once more in command, but the country does not share their enthusiasm for him. It is probably more of a coincidence that the chances of Independent Liberal candidates at the by-elections have decreased in proportion as Mr. Asquith has made himself more prominent. Their most brilliant successes were gained early in the year when, for all that one could learn from the newspapers, one could not know whether he was dead or alive. Indeed, Liberal candidates lately have actually been handicapped by the prospect that the restoration of a Liberal majority to Parliament would mean the return of Mr. Asquith to power. Lord Loreburn's book on the origins of the war has severely damaged Mr.' Asquith's reputation, and the refusal of Labour candidates to stand aside for Liberals in three-cornered contests is partly due to the opposition of progressive politicians to any -endorsement of what he stands for. "Even if we cpuld forgive Asquith," they say, "for the policy which led to the war, we can never forgive him for the secret treaties which, have ruined the. peace."