THE WAR CABINET

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 26 October 1939, Page 2

THE WAR CABINET

MR CHAMBERLAIN’S METHODS COMPARED WITH MR LLOYD GEORGE SOME IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES Differences between the War Cabinet of 1916-18 and the present War Cabinet formed by Mr Neville Chamberlain on the first day of the outbreak of hostilities are referred to by “The New Statesman and Nation.” “Mr Lloyd George had a War Cabinet of Five, only one member of which, Mr Bonar Law, was as Chancellor of the Exchequer, charged with administrative function,” it is recalled. “The other members were set free from all departmental duties in order to give their whole mind to the higher principles of strategy, international and domestic. They decided all vital questions, and transmitted their decisions, after consultation to the departments concerned. “The theory of the structure was that a Minister who is charged with the innumerable problems of a great department becomes so immersed in them that he has rarely the time and seldom the energy, either for the problems of co-ordination which constantly arise, or for that fuller perspective which enables him to see things beyond and above the miasma of departmental tradition and routine. “Mr Chamberlain has only partially accepted the Lloyd George plan. His War Cabinet is almost twice as big; it consists of nine members, not counting Mr Eden, who, as a Secretary for the Dominions, has the right to attend its meetings. But of these nine, two only, the Prime Minister himself and Lord Hankey, are completely free of departmental duties; Sir Samuel Hoare, as Lord Privy Seal, is still responsible for civil defence (apart from A.R.P.) —a somewhat undefined field. “All the services are represented together with Lord Chatfield as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Two Ministers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary represent the more civilian side of the administration. Below them, there appear to be two grades of Minister—one with Cabinet rank, like the Home Secretary, and one without Cabinet rank, like the Minister of Transport. No doubt they will be consulted from time to time; but they will take no part in the making of decisions by the War Cabinet, which remains, subject to Parliament, the paramount authority responsible for the conduct of the war.”

The article goes on to say that it is too early yet to decide whether Mr Chamberlain’s method is better or worse than Mr Lloyd George; it is recalled that Lord Curzon said that the Lloyd George system involved a large expenditure of time in composing differences between the War Cabinet and departmental Ministers.

It is assumed that Mr Chamberlain has had the benefit of Lord Hankey’s advice, since his experience is unique At the same time, “The New Statesman and Nation” adds: “The scheme is an experiment still to be proved, that the size of the War Cabinet is abnormally large for the coherency and rapidity of decision that war involves, and that Ministers, if they are to make it work, will have, to an unprecedented degree, to delegate routine functions to their subordinates both parliamentary and permanent.

"We hope Mr Chamberlain has urged the importance of this upon his colleagues. It would be fatal if any but the major decisions in a department go up to the Minister for decision. If he once gets immersed in the paperasserie of his department, the system will, however great his appetite for work, break down.”