Evening Post.

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 102, 27 October 1931, Page 8

Evening Post.

I TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1931. THE LAST WORDS - . . ■»

It is unfortunate for Mr. Arthur Henderson that just at the climax of the great fight, and with his own seat in jeopardy, he should have been compelled to take to his bed. No less than three of the protagonists are now on the sick list, but Mr. Snowden and Mr. Lloyd George are not campaign casualties. They are invalids who without the aid of the wireless could not have entered the fray at all except on paper. Less surprising than Mr. Henderson's breakdown is the fact that it had not been preceded by Mr. Mac Donald's. The. strain which during the last two years and a half Mr. Mac Donald has had to endure would have tried the toughest of men, and especially during the last three months, when to a greatly enlarged burden of responsibility has been added the pain of breaking from his party, the weak physique of, a highly-emotional and sensitive man must have been taxed almost to the breaking point. Since the breach the responsibilities of Mr. Henderson also have been far from light, and though his temperament is probably better equipped against worry than Mr. Mac Donald's, the sobriety of his previous record suggests that ever since he took the stand on behalf of an unreduced dole which destroyed the Labour Government he may have been haunted.by the suspicion that he made a double blunder —a blunder not only in tactics but in principle. At Scarborough, when he helped his friends to keep up their courage by singing "The Red Flag," Mr. Henderson may have felt that he was right, but there has been little sign of any enthusiasm since. So tamely had Mr. Henderson petered out towards the finish that it might have been just as well for his party if he had been compelled to retire a little earlier. His last word to the electors which was broadcast on Friday night Yvss entirely lacking in inspiration. According to the Official Wireless report, Mr. Henderson asserted that world capitalism had broken down, even in countries whore its authority was thought most secure, and described the remedy of the Labour Party as a planned reconstruction of the national life, which would put the national wellbeing before private advantage. Academic idealism of this kind may serve very well as trimmings for a programme, but it makes a poor slogan, and it is quite useless for the purposes of political policy. It is apparently the 10 per cent, cut in the dole that has convinced Mr. Henderson that the capitalist system has broken down. If so, his faith in it must have been hanging by a very slender thread. However that may be, does he really believe that he can replace it in a single hit with a brand-new Socialist State? or does he expect the electors to believe it? To the second of these questions Mr. Henderson himself has supplied the answer. Invited by an interviewer to say what ihe verdict would be, he answered that in the past it had been possible to prophecy "with fair accuracy." But here—Mr. Henderson expressively shrugged his shoulders, and added: "We have put our ease before the people, but as regards the result, there are many unknown factors." There is not much of the "Up guards and at 'em!" or even of the "backs to the wall" order in that unhappy shrug or in the frank, confession that none of the "many unknown factors" allowed any room for hope. Mr. Henderson's followers would have been less depressed if the doctor had sent him to bed a little earlier. A complete contrast to Mr. Henderson is represented by Mr. Snowden. There was no need for any interviewer to invite his opinion about the result, and if any such inquiry had been made the answer would not have been a shrug of the shoulders or a reference to the "many unknown factors." Mr. Snowdtn knows who is going to win, and he does not hesitate to say so. He believes that an "overwhelming majority" of the electors have decided to vote for the Government, but considering that "the real issue is between prosperity and ruin," he thought it worth while to follow up Mr. Henderson's last words over the wireless with some last words of his own. They have the same freshness and the same ringing sincerity as his previous broadcast addresses, but less invective, no figures, and more of the personal appeal appropriate to a peroration. In saying that there was less inveclive we do not mean that Mr. Snowden left his friends in the Labour Party alone. When Henry Clay was smarting from what he regarded as a betrayal in his canvass for the American Presidency he philosophically remarked, "My friends are not worth powder and shot." Fortunately Mr. Snowden did regard his friends as worth powder and shot, or these addresses of his would not have been the deadliest as well as the most informative, the most authoritative, and the most disinterested contributions to the oratory of the campaign. His references to his Labour friends on the present occasion were brief but sufficient. 1 do not seek voles myself, sitid Mr. Snowden, but I do care for my country and the workers' livelihood. I am convinced that if the Labour Parly is ioturTißd trarlc and employment and people's savings ivilJ bo in the gravest

jeopardy. The Labour Ministers who dosorted their ])osts cannot bo trusted with serious responsibility. Moreover, tlieir return would destroy confidence ;it, liomo and abroad. They would bo tied hanU and foot to the T.U.C., wliom Mr. Henderson described as liis bosses. Mr. Henderson denied that "the return of the Labour Government would mean a panic." Mr. Snowden, on the other hand, is "profoundly convinced that its return would be an irreparable disaster." It is mainly on that issue that some 30,000,000 British electors are to-day deciding the fate, not only of the nation but of the Empire. Another striking contrast to Mr. Snowden is presented by Mr. Lloyd George. His broadcast appeal to the Liberals shows that illness has not eclipsed his eloquence or his talent for epigram. But the fact that his statement that "the fate of the country is in their (the Liberals') hands" inevitably raises a smile indicates to what a pass his persistent sacrifice of principle to tactics ' have brought the party. All the other Liberal leaders have deserted him, and, excluding his two children, he had at the most one follower left in the late House of Commons, and he has only three among the candidates. Is this the party which holds the fate of the country in its hands? Are such men as Lord Grey, Lord Reading, Lord Lothian, Sir John Simon, and Sir Herbert Samuel all recreants to Liberalism? Have they all walked into the "open booby trap" "merely because it is decorated with the Union Jack?" And is Mr. Lloyd George left as the sole survivor of the old guard of Liberalism who is still true to the faith? For once we may go to Moscow to get the true perspective. The Liberal split, says the "lavcstia," makes the brilliant, sly Mr. Lloyd Georgo ridiculous. The Liberals are routed in advance, and Labour is thrown into disorder by the defection of its most eminent leaders, whose revelations are merciless. The "Izvestia" sees Communism as "the only hope in a hopeless world." Mr. Lloyd George might give it a trial when he is quite satisfied that there is no hope for Free Trade.