Evening Post. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1931. CONSERVATIVE REVOLT?

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 140, 10 December 1931, Page 8

Evening Post. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1931. CONSERVATIVE REVOLT?

One of the happiest comments passed upon Mr. Mac Donald's National Government in the hour of victory appeared in the "New Statesman and Nation," and its force was not diminished but increased by the astonishing fact that, instead of being inspired by the first impact of the as yet incomplete returns, it had been composed without hurry or bias more than 150 years previously. On the 19th April, 1774; in support of a motion attacking the tea duty which was to provoke the American colonists to rebellion in the following year, Burke delivered the first of his two great speeches on America, but a House which was hostile to his argu* ment probably listened with less pleasure to the immortal parts of it than to his diverting account of Lord Chatham's troubles with the Coalition Cabinet which he had formed in combination with the Duke of Grafton in 1766. The following extracts from this description were quoted by the "New Statesman and Nation" on the 31st October, 1931, at the head of its leading article entitled "After the Deluge":— He made an administration, so checkered and speckled; ho put together a piece of joinery, so crossly indented and whimsically dovetailed; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified mosaic; such a tesselated pavement without, cement; hero a bit of black stone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers .... Whigs and Tories, treacherous friends and open enemies—that it was, indeed, a very curious show; but utterly unsafe to touch, and unsure to stand on .... In consequence of this arrangement, having put so much tho larger part of his enemies and opposers into power, the confusion was such that his own principles could not possibly have any effect or influence in the conduct of affairs .... When he had executed his plan he had not an inch of ground to stand upon. When he had accomplished his scheme of administration he Was no longer a Minister. So close was 'the'parallel between Burkes description .of .the.. Coalition Cabinet of 1766 and the Opposition view of the National Government of 1931 that, except for the omission of a few personal or otherwise obsolete references, the "New Statesman" was able to quote the passage verbatim, and there was no need for it to add, nor did it add, a single word to emphasise a point which was a hundred per cent, complete already. But the paper's comments on Mr. Mac Donald's victory were necessarily to a considerable extent an application of Burkes text. As the ablest of the Opposition weeklies —a paper which as the "New Statesman" represented Independent Labour and as the "Nation" a less independent Liberalism, but after the amalgamation seemed to show less independence in its .attitude to the latest phase of Labour rule—the "New Statesman and Nation" has a representative position of considerable importance. The salient points of its "After the Deluge" are, therefore, deserving of consideration, especially at a time when, as yesterday's Parliamentary report showed, the accuracy of its forecast on one fundamental point is already being tested.

Mr. Mac Donald has got what he asked for —perhaps, indeed, rather more than he wanted, said tho "New Statesman." He has wiped out his own party. . . . To-day Mr. Mac Donald stands at the head of a motley crew which, though overwhelmingly Tory and Protectionist, yet contains representatives of several sharply opposed political creeds. For the first time in history we have no effective Opposition. .... Wo should i'eel less deeply troubled by the present situation were the result Teally to give Mr. Mac Donald a "free hand." We hare urged from the outsot that support of tho National Government could have no result except to tie Mr. Mac Donald's hands in Conservative and Protectionist fetters. If the event proves that we were mistaken in this we shall be only too happy to admit that wo were wrong.

On the personal side the "New Statesman and Nation" illustrated the insecurity of Mr. Mac Donald's position, not from Lord Chatham's troubles in 1766-68, but from those of Mr. Lloyd George after the Armistice.

At the moment, it says, Mr. MacDonald may seem in a strong position. He can claim that the national vote was largely a personal vote of confidence. But of what account was a similar vote, gained at a similar "khaki" election, to Mr. Lloyd George when the Tevolt of the Carlton Club threw hiri from office in 1922? And Mr. Mac Donald does not wear the laurels of a European war on his brow. And how far can the Liberal element in tho present Cabinet and Parliament act as a check when tho Tory tariff mongers once get the bit between their teeth?

From a different angle ihc "Spectator" took very much the same view of the dangers presented both by the size of the Government's majority and by the Conservative demand for tariff legislation on party lines. In passing we are glad to note that this studiously fair authority emphatically repudiates the idea that "the virtual obliteration of the Labour Party as a Parliamentary force" can be explained either by

the "Daily Herald's" attribution of it to a "storm of abuse and falsehood" or the references of the "Manchester Guardian" (which finally came down on the" side of Labour) to "tho most fraudulent election campaign of our times."

In the opinion oi' the "Spectator" the vally of the stay-at-home voter in

favour of the Government was due just as much to the blunders of the Labour Party as to the powerful propaganda of its opponents.

Distrust of the Labour Party's election programme, it says, in particular its proposed nationalisation of the banks, probably lost tho parly as many votes as National Government candidates secured by their own appeal. To that was added distrust of tho Labour leaders themselves as men who failed to faco the emergency when in office as men of courage should.

But, whatever the causes, the "Spectator's" first thought was that both the stability and the national character of the Government had been imperilled by its .extravagant majority. Under the title, "After Victory," its leading article opened as follows:—

The National Government has received from tho electors a mandate such as its leaders never dreamed of. It remains now to be seen whether it can make itself in tho truest sense national. That lays an immense responsibility on tho Conservative leaders, and Mr. Baldwin in particular. The very magnitude of his following will inevitably embarrass him, for success exhilarates to the detriment of sound judgment, and a party with such a majority as the Conservatives command in the new House of Commons may well take hardly the restraints that partnership in a National Government imposes. It is no paradox to jay that the Government has been too successful.

In thus emphasising the responsibility of Mr. Baldwin the "Spectator" shows sound judgment. The "New Statesman and Nation" had left the weight with Mr. Mac Donald.

No Prime Minister, it said, is so much a prisoner as one who has an overwhelming majority behind him. If there is no possibility of defeat in the Commons he ia deprived of his principal weapon against the more violent and irresponsible section of his rank and file.

But the insecurity of Mr. MacDonald is far greater than that of the ordinary Prime Minister whose following is inconveniently large, for nine-tenths of the overwhelming majority which he has reason to fear owes its primary allegiance to another leader. And the responsibility of Mr. Baldwin is of course increased proportionately. Mr. Baldwin's responsibility is still further increased by the fact that the full measure of the policy which most strongly appeals to the Conservative Party is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the basis of the National Government. As interpreted by the "Spectator," that basis is as follows:

The Government has been elected with a single mandate —not to bring in a tariff system, not to build dykes and ramparts against the assaults of Socialism—but to face tho crisis that confronts the nation and cope with it by whatever means a considered and continued study of tho changing situation may prescribe. That those means may have to include some recourse to tariffs has been admitted by men who like tariffs as little as the Prime Minister and Lord Grey. The Conservative leaders owe it to their Labour and Liberal colleagues to agree, as Mr. Baldwin has gone far towards, agreeing, that the work of stabilising a devalued pound may conceivably bo bettor carried through without disturbance of the fiscal system under which this country has lived for tho past eighty years. That involves no sacrifice of any convictions Protectionists may hold. It involves simply recognition of the fact that Ministers of three parties are co-operating in a common Cabinet, with the greatest possible measure of agreement attainable as the link between them. Whatever divides must, so far as it can, bo postponed till party government on the old familiar lines returns.

The "revolt of a large body of Conservatives" which was reported yesterday shows that even if the deplorably vague terms of the "gentleman's agreement" are interpreted in this way by a majority of the Cabinet, a majority of the party may refuse to accept the decision. The "New Statesman's" title of "After the Deluge" may then prove to have been premature.