Liberal Disagreement

Evening Star, Issue 19298, 10 July 1926, Page 10

Liberal Disagreement

Lloyd George and the Strike Lord Oxford’s Sharp Reproof The Rejoinder The text is appended of the letters between Lord Oxford (Leader Of the Liberal Party) and Mr Lioyd George, which signalised the crisis of disagreement in the higher ranks of the British Liberals, of which the cables have had something to say lately.

“OBLIGATIONS OF COMRADESHIP " Following is tho text of Lord Oxford’s letter: — “44 Bedford square, W.C.I, “ May 20, 1020. “My dear Lloyd George,— “I have refrained from writing iu you until the strike was over and the life of the country had resumed its normal course. “ 1 should not ho doing my duly as Leader of tho Liberal Party if 1 did not now convey to you my regret at the course which you have pursued in the - greatest domestic crisis which the country has had to confront iu your time or mine. “ SHADOW ” CABINET’S VIEWS. “I need not remind you that on the day when the general strike already declared was about to come into operation—Monday, May 3—wo discussed with our colleagues at a meeting of tho 1 Shadow ’ Cabinet the proper attitude of the Liberal Party. “We were all of us critical. of souk; of tho steps which in tho origin and progress of tho coal dispute tho Government had taken, or omitted to take. “ But wo were united in our determination to condemn and to join with such influence as we could exercise or command in resisting tho ill-advised resort of the Trades Union Council to the anti-sociai campaign of a general strike. HOUSE OF LORDS SPEECH.

“ The next day, May 4 (Tuesday) 1 took the first opportunity open to xue to declare and explain in the House of Lords what I had then every reason to believe, and still believe, to be the practically unanimous judgment of our party. “I-have read over my speech, and I find in it nothing to qualify or amend. “I did not fail to point out that in my opinion a better uso might have been made by the Government of the respite of nine months purchased by the subsidy for the maturing of constructive proposals -in the coal dispute. “ But I urged as strongly as 5. could that this was not the moment for criticism of the past in any of its aspects, and that our paramount duty was_ to concentrate onthe task of frustrating the common danger which threatened the whole nation. “ I added two of three practical suggestions- towards tho attainment of peace. LORD GREY AND SIR J. SIMON. “A few days later when wo were in the thick of tho conflict I addressed through the only available organ—the ‘British Gazette’—a short message to help to hearten the mass of tho people in their splendid struggle against tho coercion of a now dictatorship. “ Lord Grey wrote in the same sense, and a powerful contribution to a right understanding of the case was made by Sir John Simon in tho House of Commons. “None of these declarations were in any sense unsympathetic to the miners; still less were they hostile to_ the principles or the legitimate activities of trades unions, which Liberal legislation has done so much in tho past to safeguard. SHADOW CABINET’S SECOND MEETING. “I summoned another meeting of the ‘Shadow’ Cabinet on Monday, May 10. All my colleagues attended with tho notable exception of yourself. The reasons for your absence, as sot out in a letter dated the same morning, seemed to mo to bo wholly inadequate. “The main ground alleged was that declarations have been made in tho Government Press by the Leader ot the Party (i.e., myself) and _ other Liberals of authority from which you i'olb obliged to dissent. “ You added that you could not ‘ sec your way to join in declarations which condemned the general strike, while refraining from citicism of _ tho Government. who are equally, it not more, responsible.” “ Whether you were or were not at this time aware of the terms of my speech in the House of Lords, 1 do not know. Though for the moment full and accurate reporting had (as I think, most short-sightedly) bee., rendered impossible, yet the gist of what I said could easily have been ascertained. A PRIMARY DUTY. “I regard this as a very grave matter . We had reached tho most critical moment of the strike. It was in my judgment the primary duty of all who were responsible for tho Liberal policy, and certainly not least of the chairman of the Parliamentary Party in tho House of Commons,'at such a time to meet together for Iree and lull discussion, and to contribute their counsels to the common stock. . “Your refusal to so I hud impossible to reconcile with my conception of the obligations of political comradeship. , , , , “I should have been glad to stop at this point. Your speeches in the House of Commons were, of necessity, so scantily and inadequately reported that I make no comment upon them. AMERICAN ARTICLE. “But I cannot pass by without notice the article which, entirely/m your own account, you thought it right, when it was above all things necessary to demonstrate tho essential unity of the country, to contribute to tbo American “ I have now had tho opportunity of reading the full text. It contains a desponding, though highly-colored, picture of our national straits. “It predicts a prolonged duration of the conflict, and the ultimate wearing down of tho steadfastness of our people through worry about their vanishing trade. ■ , A . “ I cannot but deplore that such a presentation of tho caso should have been offered to the outside world, on the authority of an ex-Primo Minister of Groat Britain and the Chairman of the Liberal Parliamentary Party.

“It gives mo red pain to have to write, this letter. you well know, it is not dictated by personal leelings.— yours sincerely, (Signed) Oxronn. IB LLOYD GEORGE’S REPLY “ Cricciclli, May 21, 1926. “My dear Oxford,—l have given very careful consideration to your letter, and have done my utmost to prevent its unusual tone from dollccting calm judgment on its contents. “Since wo decided, two and a-ha If rears ago, to effect reunion among the divided forces of Liberalism 1 have done my best in every way to make thai reunion under our leadership an .effective reality, and if open dissension is once more "to be promoted in our ranks tho responsibility must rest elsewhere. “If it must come, let us bo clear as to what tho conflict i.s about, and whether it is on an issue of principle or on points of a purely personal character. THE ALLEGATION. “As 1 understand the gravamen of your letter, it consists of a charge that, in criticising the Government and urging a return to negotiations during tho progress of tho strike, 1 was pursuing a course which was unworthy of my position in tho party, and which contrasts unfavorably with the action of Lord Grey, Sir John Simon, and yourself, and that it calls for solemn rebuke and repudiation from you as leader of tho party. “ As to my criticism of tho Government, they were mainly contained in two speeches, both delivered before tho strike actually began. Guo was delivered at Cambridge on Saturday, May 1, and the other iu the House of Commons on the following Monday. “As to tho former, may I remind you that, at tho meeting of tho Liberal Shadow Cabinet on May 3, summoned specially to consider tho lino to ho adopted by the Liberal Party iu face of tho impending general strike, you and my colleagues expressed warm approval of the lino I took iu my Cambridge speech. “ It was tho only speech delivered by a Liberal leader which was at all fairly reported, and as tho Liberal Cabinet approved of tho declarations contained in it I will summarise them. 1 took three points in tho following order: — “ (1) The Government of tho clay must bo supported in any action it may take to defend order and to preserve the essential services. ‘Tho nation must come first and all tho time.’ “ (2) The Government, by their delays and dawdlings, arc primarily responsible for tho present situation. It had been ‘ all talking and no tackling.' “ (3) Lot them get on with negotiations and for the first time really tackle the job. “ Although negotiations had then boon broken off by tho Government and a general strike was imminent, no one at this important Liberal Council which settled our policy suggested that the. unconditional surrender of tho strikers should precede tho resumption of negotiations. “ From the line then taken I have never deviated in speech or writing. Fortified. by tho assent of my colleagues 1 spoke in tho same sense that afternoon in my speech in tho House of Commons, and in my observations from tho chair at the meeting of tho party I deprecated tho general strike and the conduct of tho negotiations by the Government, but as i. was pleading for conciliation and a renewal of negotiations, I spoke of the mistakes made by both parlic l ' with much restraint. HOUSE OF LORDS SPEECH.

(> Alter tlio strike line! actually commenced, .1 directed only two criticisms at the Government. 1 complained that the Ministerial Editor ot the egregrious * British Gazette ’ —the only moans of communicating parliamentary debates to the public—had completely suppressed your speech in the House of Lords in the official Government journal, a speech, by the way, in which, as you pointed out in your letter, you had alter the strike had started severely condemned the Government for their mishandling of the situation, and put forward suggestions for which I am reproved.

All my protests, however, resulted merely that on the following day the 4 British Gazette ’ inserted a few Hues torn from their context and giving no kind of idea of what you had proposed as a means of settlement.

“ I then endeavored, with the assistance of the three editors of the London Liberal papers to have that speech reproduced in an independent paper, and on that failing, succeeded in publishing the vital suggestions of it in one of them. _ “ I afterwards called attention to the action of the Government in suppressing tho appeal for resumption of negotiations issued hy the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of himself and the other leaders of tho Christian churches.

“Apart from these two criticisms my two speeches during the strike were confined to a support of the emergency measures taken by the Government; to a plea that these powers should be exercised with moderation and impartiality; and to a support of the Archbishop’s appeal for an immediate resumption of negotiations on the basis of calling off the general strike, a reopening of the mines, and a temporary subsidy.

“ These proposals were identical with those embodied in a document prepared by Sir John Simon, approved by the Shadow Cabinet and by tho Liberal Parliamentary Party. “Ho summarised them subsequently in his second speech in tho House of Commons—a summary which was also mutilated in tho Government organ, which appeared to have adopted the policy that no Liberal statement should be issued except assertions that we were falling in behind the Conservative Party, and had no constructive policy to offer at all

“ In what respect do these proposals differ from the policy I urged upon the Government? 1 was giving expression

throughout to an elementary Liberal: principle.that force was no remedy. I applied it impartially to strikers and Government WAR PRECEDENT.

“In both the Boer War and the Great War the Liberal Party disavowed the policy of refusing to announce terms or to engage in parleys for peace until there had first been an unconditional surrender. On both occasions that attitude was regarded as a Diehard policy. “ But I gather you do not base your censure of my conduct on the speeches I delivered, as you state that you have had no opportunity of perusing them. Tho only one you .rend —the Cambridge speech—you expressed approval of. “The other speeches will bo found in ‘Hansard 1 when published, and as they are the only words I uttered in public during tbe strike 1 am entitled to ask why they were not at least read before I was condemned for the course 1 pursued. SHADOW CABINET.

“It is true 1 did not attend a meeting of the Liberal Shadow Cabinet on May 10. I sent, however, (Tom the country, a full summary of my suggestions concerning the crisis, addressed to Sir Godfrey Collins, with which I. believe you entirely agreed. [ append a copy for your perusal.

“ It represents quite fairly tho position I took. May I point out that 1 have been a more regular attendant at the Shadow Cabinet meetings than any other of your leading colleagues. Yon say we were 1 to meet together for a full and free discussion and to contribute our counsels to the common stock.’ “ 1 thought wc had decided on our course of action during the strike at tho Cabinet held on the 3rd. 1 took tho decision arrived at then as my guidance, and 1 never departed from the direction then given. “On this occasion I thought decision had been prejudged by announcements in the ‘ British Gazette,’ which 1 considered a complete departure from our agreed policy—announcements which hear no kind of relationship to tho Liberal policy as outlined by you am! which the Government had previously suppressed. “They had been issued to flic Government Press without any previous consultation amongst us, hut I. feared it was too Into to amend, them, and that it would he wiser for me not to come up from the conn fry merely to criticise a policy to which wo had already been committed by these fresh declarations, hut to send' a letter expressing my view. “ A discussion under these conditions might lead to friction over a situation which was in its nature temporary. “ i need hardly explain that no discourtesy was intended towards you. I was only anxious to avoid the unpleasantness of provoking discussion upon the communications of you and other of my colleagues which appeared in a paper which had previously rclused to publish your lull ideas on tho subject. TENSIONS OF LAST TWO AND A-HALF YEARS. “ It was too laic fo do anything hut exhibit differences, when 1. hoped that in a few weeks tho whole controversy would have blown over. ] made no public comment on any of the declarations as representing only half the policy on which we had agreed. “ 1 know how difficult it has been during the past two and a-half years to avoid tensions. I have done my best to prevent any outbreak, but often at the cost of some humiliation. “As to whether it would have been wiser for mo to risk friction and attend that meeting, there may bo some difference of opinion; but seeing that amongst those who condemn my action are men who habitually disregard your invitation, my failure to attend on this occasion hardly justifies so provocative a document as you have addressed to ono of your colleagues. “ It is within your knowledge that this was not the first occasion on which decisions have been taken on matters of serious importance to the party without my having had any previous opportunity of expressing any opinion on tho subject. THE AMERICAN ARTICLE. , “As to my American article, you clearly cannot have read it with any care. It was otic of tho fortnightly articles I contribute to the Press of many countries, the first garbled reports of which did not appear in this country until the strike was well over. “ It was there misrepresented up to the point of inventing sentences I never wrote. Jt was written on tho first day of the strike. i “ 1 only give my first impressions of it from what 1 saw—an impression which coddcspondcd with that of scores of articles which wore printed in tho American papers and which was a substantially correct description of what was actually happening. “ I do not profess fo discuss the merits of tho dispute. Tho concluding words fairly summarise its contents: — ‘Up to now it is iu essence an industrial dispute over wages, uni fortunately complicated by this “ sympathetic strike.” There is no revolutionary purpose animating the union leaders who arc now in charge. ‘There has so far been no bloodshed, There has been no interference with property, and no personal violence. The whole influence of tho strike leaders will be exerted iu the interests of law and order. ‘ Let us trust that a settlement will lie reached whilst calm and restraint are being maintained on both sides. There are grave risks in tho whole situation. I put my faith on British coolness and la tho British Parliament.’ “ Is not this an clement which has been regarded with astonishment and admiration throughout the whole world?

“The ‘Manchester Guardian,’ in its issue of Friday, May 21, summarises the position in the following words: — “ It is just such an article as any sensible and moderately-minded man might have written, and though it is unlikely that Mr Churchill would have permitted its publication in the ‘ British Gazette,’ the Archbishop of Canterbury would certainly have been

ready to give it his blessing. “ I am content with this opinion on my article expressed by the most honored and venerated figure in British journalism. “ You complain that I predict a prolonged struggle unless the public and Parliament intervene to protect our damaged trade. Arc you sure the industrial struggle even now will not bo prolonged unless _ 1 Parliament takes a hand,' as I put it? “ 1 point out that tho miners are accustomed to prolonged strikes. You and I have had a painful experience of that fact. “It is true 1 assumed that the Trade Union Council would stand by the miners to the end. There. 1 miscalculated. But was it so outrageous an assumption as to deserve censure? “The net result of a. failure to press negotiations has been this deadlock so disastrous to our trade at home. QUESTIONS TO LORD OXFORD. “In conclusion I again ask if there is to be another schism in tho party, one would like to know what it is about. Is it on a question of policy? if so, what? “Jt cannot bo anything I have written to America. So far as I know, we exercise no censorship in the Liberal Party on each others’ books er publications. “Is it my absence from one Shadow Cabinet meeting not to create dissension amongst my colleagues? Surely this is an inadequate reason for commencing a fresh feud in the Liberal Party! “ Is it because before the strike began I offered the same criticism of the Government conduct of negotiations as you tendered during the progress of

the strike, or that I pressed upon the House of Commons the sound counsel oli'ored to tho nation by the leaders of the Christian Churches? “This is surely unthinkable. From that advice, which tho Liberal Cabinet endorsed at its May 3 meeting, .1 did nob recede, and I cannot now repudiate it. “ Throughout _ this grave national trouble 1 have given what 1 considered to be tho best advice to my countrymen as one who has taken part often in tho accommodation of industrial disputes in Campbell-Bannerman's Government, yours, and my own. “I need hardly say' 1 shall he prepared to meet you and the rest of my colleagues to discuss the whole position if you consider such a discussion will be helpful tn the party.—Ever sincerely, “ (Signed) D. Lr.ovn CEonnn.”

A debate of misual interest wa.s hold in the Y.M.C.A. .Boys’ Division last night, when teams of four members from tho High School and Technical College met to discuss the subject ‘ That the Matriculation Examination is Not Educationally Sound, and Should Be Superceded by tho Accrediting System.’ The affirmative was taken by the Boys’ High School team, consisting of Stan Downes, Ivan Turnbull, Colin M'Donald, and Murray Arthur, and the negative side of the question was presented by tho following Technical College team: —Arthur Lucas, William Lake, Frank Breesc, and Harold Morrison. Tho standard of debate was of a high grade. The judge, the Ilev. Jos. Franklyn, awarded the honor to Technical College. Individual speakers were awarded the following places of merit: — First, A. Lucas; second, H. Morrison and S. Downes; third, W. Lake, and F. Brce.se. This is ono of a series of thirty debates which tbo Boys’ Division will conduct throughout tho year.