Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1924. THREE-PARTY CLIMAX

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 19, 23 January 1924, Page 6

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1924. THREE-PARTY CLIMAX

Mr. Baldwin's Government has been defeated, and the .Labour Party i| preparing to take its place. Th© change is described aB "jfchfi.moßtjnotable in. the con-^ stitutional history .of England «mcc' the pignirig! .of/Magna Charta,": and aB masking >the complete attainment ,of the freedom for which Magna Charta provided. The firJst ef these descriptions is nearer to the mark than the second. The change which puts a Socialist Party in chaTge of the greatest Empire that the.>world eyer saw is (Certainly an event of [importance, >but it v is .not-easy to 1 see how the establishment of -a Government which represents less ithan a third of the House of Comj mons and about the same propori tion of the electors can reasqnably jbe regarded as a consummation of I freedom. Responsible Government ;is reduced to something very like ! a -farce by -such a proceeding,, and the fact that the party which is ; profiting by the absurdity is called the most "democratic" ;O f ;the ' three does not alter the essentially ! undemocratic nature of the per- [ formance. In so iar as Eepresentaitive Government is a necessary fpart of freedom, the triumph of the British Labour Party is not the : consummation of freedom, but : rather its "reduotio ad absurdum.'5 '• The - rise -of a third party under a system which was ;evolved to ;meet the exigencies of a two : party : struggle is,,of course, the .ultimate ! cause of the .tro.uble,. but.the proximate cause is the determination ;of the Liberals to give their casting vote against their^traditional [Opponents and in favour of their new. rivals. ;If there L had been any risk of. Protection, .this decisicm would have been rendered inevitable by the verdict of the electors; The unhappy impuls» which induced the Government to appeal to the country on this issue brought the Liberals together : again, and brought the Labour '. Party into line with it on iwhat was thus made the ; crucial po/nt. But.the first batch ■of contested returns showed Protection to be dead, and it can^ ; not possibly. be revived during the present Parliament. That being so, there is no matter of principle : to form a new line of cleavage that ican be compared in importance , with the question, of Socialism, and on this Liberalism and Conservat,ism ; are at one with Labour on •the' other side. If the tariff issue be treated as dead, there is no gainsaying Mr. Baldwin's statement is correct—viz., "that the Liberal Party only got its number as the last -election,by telling the electors to keep out the Socialist Party.'.' Yet, having effectively cast their first vote against Protection, the Liberals may now be said to have cast their alternative vote in'favour of Socialism. How is this grave responsibility to be logically or morally justified?

The Liberals' answer is that they I have voted for the Socialist Party but not.for Socialism ; that Labour will go into power with a brake on iin the form of dependence upon .Liberal votes; that according to the still stronger figure of speech 1 employed by Sir Donald Maclean, Labour,, when it goes into power, will also go into custody. The latest exponent of this doctrine is Six John Simon, in . the speech which is .summarised in a cable i message to-day. He proposes to , " support the Liberal measures' and oppose the Unliberal measures proposed by Labour, decla'r:ing that the verdict at the elections showed that -the country was as firmly opposed to Socialism as :to Protection." To give effect to •this firm opinion of the country by putting a Socialist Government in office seems a strangely illogical .proceeding for so able a reasoner as Sir John Simon. Nor do his concluding words—" that a vast majority favoured a new spirit of government "—really operate as a saving clause. Does Sir John Simon mean that, though the country condemned Socialism, it would nevertheless desire to see the administration in the hands of Socialists 1 or that the new spirit which it favoured will be better displayed by this party than by the two who, except on the point which is no longer at issue, were in general agreement, and who between them polled some two-thirds of the votes? It looks as though party feeling and perhaps personal ambitions have had as much to do with the Liberal attitude as regard for the public interests. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who is not given to "extravagant statements, said that Sir John Simon would be in the Socialist camp when it became popular, and that the issue at the next election woujd be between Labour and Conservatism. On the second point, at any rate, Mr. Chamberlain appears to be right. The unity and the enthusiasm which the sudden challenge to Free Trade gave to the Liberals left them nevertheless with only about 30 per cent, of the votes. With no fiscal question to help them and Monday's vote to hinder them, they are likely to do much worse next time. Was the " new spirit of govern- , meiit" which the country desired

that which may be displayed by the tabour Government in its handling .of the railway1 strike during the next three weeks' without any possible <;heck from Parliament,? 'Will the-.diplomacy of the new Government also do what the country .desired in the Ruhr and elsewhere? Miv Eamsay;Macdon-ald-may be relied upon to do his best, -and in so.' doing to disappoint 'the more extravagant prophets of evil,' but it will not be easyfor -the Liberals to satisfy the country that they- did their best in a much less embarrassing position than Mr. Macdonald.