IRRESPONSIBLE SPEECH

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 124, 30 May 1927, Page 8

IRRESPONSIBLE SPEECH

May seems to be a baa mouth for Mr. Lloyd George. In May, 1926, the out-, break of the General Strike provided a test for his patriotism and hia public spirit which they signally failed to satisfy. It cannot even be said in extenuation of his offence on that occasion that he gave up to party -what was meant for the nation, for his refusal to meet the other Liberal leaders in' order to disc ass the gravest issue that had arisen since the War showed just as-little regard for party loyalty as for the broader and higher loyalty by which the attitude of Lord Oxford was dictated. To so expert a student of public opinion as Mr. Lloyd GeoTge it is, however, probable that the complete ana almost instantaneous falsification of his diagnosis of the nation's attitude to the General Strike was the most mortifying part of his blundering. But in the desperate straits of his party much could be forgiven to a leader endowed^with such personal charm, such abounding vitality and brilliant eloquence, and so huge a political cash-box. The retirement of T.ord. Oxford allowed Mr. Lloyd George to make peace with his party and to place his talents and his funds at its disposal. The most glaring of his mistakes since the reconciliation weighted him with a new responsibility was at the beginning of December, when he jeered at the measures contemplated by the Government for the defence of Shanghai! as sounding the "tocsin of war" and engineered in the interests of "foreigners." But that false step was speedily retraced, and since the Government's decision was announced Mr. Lloyd' George has declared without reserve that the protection l>y a Government of its nationals is a paramount obligation in which if should be supported regardless of party. The acid J test which was presented by China in February has been renewed by Russia in May, and it is unfortunate that Mr. Lloyd George's failure in the second case has been almost, if not quite, as conspicuous in the second case as was Ms success in the first. In the House of Commons he spoke with restraint and even embarrassment. How he voted is not clear, but it cannot :have been in favour of the, Labour amendment, as it did not express the "unmistakable reprobation of the continual breaches of <$he Anglo-Russian Agreement" which he declared to be a condition of his support. The Liberal Leader may be considered to have carried charity to the pitch of absurdity when he described the Soviet Government's attempt "to reconcile a genuine desire for all the advantages of peace with the greatest Empire in the world with an equally genuine desire to witness its overthrow." But to criticise Mr. Lloyd George in that way would bo to imply noi that his speech in the House was lacking in balance, but that it was too nicely balanced to be effective. In the more congenial atmosphere of a Liberal meeting at Margato he seems, however, on the following day to have thrown all balance and restraint to tho winds, and to have spoken with the. reckless irresponsibility of his Limehouse period on an Imperial issue of the gravest possible im-' portance. > In bno sense one might nay that Mr. Lloyd Georgo seeks to exaggerate the gravity of the issue with quite unpardonable extravagance. He speaks of "the rupture with 150 millions of the most formidable people on earth," and in support of this description refers to the gallantry with which the Russians died in the Great War at the command of their Tsar! Mr. Lloyd George surely under-cstimates the courage displayed by his own countrymen during the War if he expects to make their flesh creep by such an argument. He under-esti-mates their intelligence also if he expects them to believe that 150 millions of Russians are massed as solidly behind Stalin and Tchitcheiin as they were behind the Tsar at the beginning of the War, "What folly I What madness!" says Mr. Lloyd Georgo of a Government which dares to break off relations with Soviet Russia. He says nothing of tho folly and madness, the crookedness and the malevolence, of Bolshevik intrigue,, but he leaves himself open to tho retort that he might have denounced these things with equal fervour if he did not believe that they command the united support of "150 millions of the most formidable people on earth." The dissent of Mr. J. L. Garvin is, of course, entitled to much more weight than Mr. Lloyd George'B unmeasured ■philippic. The "Observer" has consistontly favoured closer relations with Russia, and a week ago Mr. Garvin was Roping that "Mr. Baldwin and Sir Austen Chamberlain will persuade Cabinet to give Russia another chance, unless the new arguments for a rupture prove unanswerable." To-day Mr. Garvin is reported as admitting "that the logical justification of the Government's policy is overwhelming," but as arguing rWerthelcss that "the Arcos raid was by itself a failure" and "added nothing of importance to the evidence already possessed." M the "Observer" had not been a Sunday paper, one might have supposed that it had-gone to press before . the report of the Home Secretary's speech wm available. As it is/

we can orfy say that, if the discovery of a photographic copy of the stolen document produced in the Arcos building added nothing of importance to the .previous evidence, the only fault of the Government was in tolerating too long the prosecution of. a conspiracy against the safety of the nation under cover of diplomatic privilege. What but further mischief could be expected from giving such wickedness another chance?