Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1922. WILL MR. LLOYD GEORGE RESIGN ?

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 54, 6 March 1922, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1922. WILL MR. LLOYD GEORGE RESIGN ?

Mr. Chamberlain's speech at Oxford has publicly confirmed with emphasis and detail the assurances of loyalty which Mr. Lloyd George had previously received in private from the Conservative leaders. " The best thing," said Mr. Chamberlain, "is to talk frankly," and he did talk frankly. Perhaps nothing that he said regarding the immediate causos of the crisis is calculated to do Mi. Lloyd George more good than his reference to a crucial circumstance in the crisis which resulted in the formation of the present Ministry more than five years ago. It, has been universally recognised that Mr. Lloyd George ,was instrumental in ensuring the downfall of the Asquith Coalition, and that without this addition all his other distinguished war services would hardly have availed to win the war. But there was a strong suspicion that in displacing his old friend and leader Mr. Lloyd George had his own ends in view as well as those of his country, and this suspicion has pointed many a gibe for those Liberals who have never forgiven him for wrecking their party in order to save the Empire. Mr. Chamberlain has now put the Prime Minister right. "It ought," he said, " to be common knowledge that, when Mr. Asquithj resigned,' Mr. Lloyd George did not seek the Premiership. >He offered to serve under Mr. Bonar Law or Mr. Balfour " —now, as the Empire is glad to know, Sir Arthur Balfour, K.G. —"but both thought it was in the interest of the country that Mr. Lloyd George should have the Premiership, and he took it on their request." The Prime Minister has so many real political sins to answer for during his long and distinguished career that it is good to have his reputation cleared of this imaginary one, and to know that, in ousting a Government which was "waiting and seeing "instead of winning the war, .his motives were not tainted by the element of self-seeking. Mr. Lloyd George's patriotic readiness to stand aside in 1916 supplies, however, no sufficient reason for accepting his offer to resign in 1922 at its face value. The circumstances have entirely changed. It was quite possible- for Mr. Lloyd George to accept a subordinate position in the Government that had to be formed on Mr. Asquith's resignation." Such' a course is plainly impossible now, nor is there any suggestion to the'contrary. Mr. Lloyd George does not offer either to serve in a Coalition Government under a new leader, or to retire into private life. What he told Mr. Chamberlain was that " if we felt that the interests of the country would be better served by a return to party government he would gladly retire." This offer means that if the Unionists would like to break up the Coalition, the Premier will not attempt to stand in their way. " A return to party government " is incapable of any other interpretation. With the rest of the Coalition Liberals, Mr. Lloyd George is ready to go into Opposition if the Unionists so desire, and to fight them in, the House of Commons or at the polls as circumstances may require. An offer of this kind may be more accurately described as a threat, and all parties concerned are compelled to regard it as such, though politeness may not permit them to say so. What would happen to Mr. Lloyd George if his "offer" were accepted as a matter for speculation, though the presumption is that the cat-like agility which has never yet failed him would enable him to land on his feet. But that for the Unionists the result would be disastrous seems to be beyond doubt. Mr. Chamberlain and his colleagues did, therefore, the proper and the only possible thing in declining Mr. Lloyd George's suggestion and assuring him of their unshaken loyalty.- But the Prime Minister, who had assurances of the same kind after a similar trouble had disturbed his tranquillity at Cannes, and who has apparently had no reason since then to doubt ( the loyalty of the Conservative j

leaders, wanted something better than this. "Mr. Lloyd George," said Mr. Chamberlain, " would not take my answer, but told me to confer formally with my party and let him have their reply. He added that a wave of unrest and differences of opinion were distracting the Coalition." Mr. Chamberlain has consulted his party, and their reply is ." that the interests of the' county would not be advanced, but rather retarded, by his (Mr. Lloyd George's) resignation," and that Xi to accept his offer would be to betray the stability which it is the duty of the Conservative Party to preserve." Even this assurance has failed to satisfy Mr. Lloyd George completely, and the Daily Chronicle's Parliamentary correspondent describes the position as " still very serious." Writings day later, however, the Sunday Times—one of the small " Sunday school " which the Morning Post declares to be well grounded in the views of the Government —says positively that Mr. Lloyd George will not resign at present. ' The Unionist Party's assurance, to which the Sunday Times testifies, that it will " disclaim and not sanction any attempt at a Conservative breakaway" seems to go nearer to the root of the matter than the language employed by Mr. Chamberlain. The loyalty of the Unionist leaders and of the Parliamentary rank-and-file have not been in serious doubt. But there is a strong feeling of unrest in the constituencies, which has found expression in the local organisations of the party, and through them in Sir George Younger, the Chief Whip. Of him, The Times says that he " speaks for the Conservative machine, over which he exercises a personal control unknown in the history of.the party." One of Sir George Younger's strongest points is that the reform of the House of Lords, which was promised in the joint election manifesto of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law, shall be carried out before Parliament is dissolved. The object in view is, of course, not so much to secure a democratic House of Lords as to put a check upon the almost unlimited power which the Parliament Act Has given to the House of Commons. The demand is perfectly reasonable from the Conservative standpoint, nor can the Liberal wing of the Coalition honourably ignore one of the pledges on which its victory was won. The position of the Coalition must apparently continue to be one of unstable equilibrium until this vital point has been determined.