Evening Post. FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1931. "BALDWIN THE TERRIBLE"

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 67, 20 March 1931, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1931. "BALDWIN THE TERRIBLE"

Lord Egerton, who was Bacon's immediate predecessor in the Lord Chancellorship, was described by Ben Jonson as "a grave and great orator, and best when' he was provoked." And of the advantage of provocation over preparation for "men of present spirits and of greater wits than study" the same authority says: I have heard some of thorn compelled to speak, out of nocessity, that have so infinitely exceeded themselves, as it was better both for them and thoir auditory that they wcro so surprised, not prepared. Nor was it safo then to cross them, for their adversary, their anger mado them more eloquent. •In the speech by which Mr. Baldwin stampeded his audience at the Queen's Hall and set the whole Press of Britain, except that part of it owned by the objects of his attack, ringing with hia praises, he may be said to have combined both the advantages which are here contrasted. He had had prolonged, intense, and outrageous provocation —the "Daily Herald" is quite accurate when it speaks of "seven years' personal attacks of the Press barons"—and he had also made careful preparation. The result was a triumph of invective of which the "Daily Telegraph" says that

Mr. Baldwin's performance has no parallel in British, political history for a full century.

The wonder and the piquancy of Mr. Baldwin's achievement are indefinitely enhanced by the contrast which it presents to his normal role. He has loved to pose as the plain man from the country who is in his place among the rustics of Worcestershire, but somehow or other through the confidence that they have placed in him has found his way to Westminster and Downing Street, and there been saddled with responsibilities which are far beyond his merits. With a simplicity equal to thai.-rhich he professed, Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook, the twin barons of the "Daily Mail," the "Daily Express," and a number of smaller papers, have taken this simple countryman at his awn valuation, and endeavoured first to persuade and then to browbeat and intimidate him. • As he failed to respond to the salt which they put on his tail, one of them has not shrunk from trying to put pepper in his eyes, and both of them have bespattered him with mud. But the plain man from Worcestershire has turned upon his assailants at last, and with devastating results. Though . Mr. Baldwin has waited long and patiently this explosion of righteous wratlf has not been entirely without warning. In the famous and partly repudiated "People" interview to which the "Daily Herald" refers, where it fixes seven years as the period of these attacks, Mr. Baldwin said:

I am attacked-by the Trust Press, by Lord Bcaverbrook and Lord Eothermcre. For myself I do not mind. I care "not what they say or think . . . I often wonder if my silent contempt irritates them more than if I were to speak out. I suppose it is my lot to suffer disloyalty. But there are limits.

The remarkably plain speaking in which Mr. Baldwin indulged in at least' two Conservative Party meetings last year at the expense of his critics represented a very promising start for a beginner, and showed that in his opinion they had very nearly reached the limit. B,ut both the Caxton Hall speeches' were as milk for babes in comparison with the philippic which he delivered at the Queen's Hall. Nor need we be surprised when we look at the provocation. Mr. Baldwin's reference to the "insolent plutocracy" whose papers ,he had to fight had drawn this tasteful comment from the "Daily Mail":

Tho expression "insolent plutocracy" crime ill from Mr. Baldwin, as his father left him an immense fortune, which, according to his own speeches, almost disappeared. It is difficult to sec how a party leader who lost his own fortune can hope to restore that of others or the country.

It is only natural that a man who had been attacked in this mean, dastardly, and disgusting fashion.should have been greeted with "shouts of 'Baldwin for ever,' " as soon as lie appeared on the platform at the Queen's Hall, and it is pleasant to think of the reception which such an audience must have given to his reading of the libel and to his retort.

Mr. Baldwin described the first part of the statement as a lie, the second by implication as untrue, while the" whole could only be written by a cad. Ho added that counsel had advised that a libel action could be brought, "but," said he, "an apology would bevalueless, while I would not touch the damages with a barge pole."

When a statement is partly a white lie, partly a black one, and wholly caddish, little room seems to be left in it for the truthful or the gentlemanly. If the severity of Mr. Baldwin's invective is without a parallel in British public life for a century, one may hope that the abominable nature of the provocation is without a parallel' on the part of any newspaper of standing for at least as long. The only thing to regret in Mr. Baldwin's comment is his' refusal to take legal proceedings. His own honour was in no danger, but Cor ihe honour of public life ami for (lie honour of journalism lie-should have taken ihc "Daily Mail" lo Court. Even a jury of Empire CruSfirlcrs could nol: have refused him a big vcrdicl, and many a deserving

charily would have welcomed the money with which he preferred not to soil his hands. The fact that Mr. Baldwin had violated the rule—unknown in this country —"that a party leader should not participate directly in a by-elec-tion" did not prevent his receiving congratulations from Liberals and Labourers as well as from Conservatives on his return to the House of Commons. It is good news that all equally detest the Press vendetta of which Mr. Baldwin is the victim. The politicians evidently felt that his breach of a rule established for their own protection was fully justified by the service Mr. Baldwin was rendering against the common enemy of them all. Of the record-breaking character of the speech itself it is impossible to form an independent judgment from the brief reports that have been cabled, but the unanimity of the Press comments, regardless of party, leaves no room for doubt. Ho has retorted upon one of his assailants, says the Conservative "Morning Post," with a talent for invective which the world did not suspect in so meek a man, while the Labour Party's "Daily Herald" is more flattering still when it says: — It was as Baldwin the Terriblo lio subdued thioo thousand cheering people to silenco in a speech without precedent in our generation. We trust that this sudden transformation of Baldwin the Meek into Baldwin the Terrible will not scare away the electors of St. George's.