THE BIG THREE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17657, 21 June 1919, Page 2

THE BIG THREE.

THEIR ATTITUDES AM) AMBITIONS,

Bv Constant Rkadbii.

From American sources comes the news that M. Clemonceau intends to resign tho Premiership of Franco so soon as peaco is signed. President Wilson has already signified his intention of retiring from public hfo in order to dovoto himself to tho writing of history, when his present Presidential term comes to an end. Alone among " Tho Big Three " Mr Lloyd George lias given no hint as to his desires for tho future. As tho British Prime Minister is the youngest of tho famous trio who have been so busily engaged in making history at tho Peace Conference, it is natural to suppose that many years of public life still lio before him. He is only 55 years of age as against President Wilson's 63 years and M. Clemenceau's 78 years. At this tense juncture in the world's affairs, when the news is so eagerly and anxiously awaited respecting Germany's decision, a comparison of the attitudes and ambitions of the three men, who more than any others, are responsible for the reconstruction of Europe and for the bringing into existence of the League of Nations, may prove profitable. Utterly unlike in almost everything, "Tho Big Ihroo" have one quality in common, winch has been abundantly illustrated in their respective careers—the quality of a remarkable versatility. In the preface to his biography of Clemenceau, M. Camillo Ducray writes:— In turn student, teacher, mayor, doctor, municipal councillor, deputy, journalist, man of letters, senator, dramatic author, and minister, he plied his various trades, carried on his professions, and filled his numerous public offices, first setting aside politics for a liberal career, and finally giving up that to take the reins of government in his hands. He is a Frenchman through and through. His hfo has been a unity of splendid, irreducible, almost savage patriotism. His first public utterance, in the Bordeaux Assembly, of which he is the last survivor, was a youthful and passionate protest against the mutilation of Alsace and Lorraine. Almost his last public utterance—so far—is a hymn of fervour over the restored provinces. In his "brief appreciation" of "The Peace President." Mr William Archer says of President. Wilson: "He has at moiro than one juncture been in very truth the arbiter of the destinies of the world. In the name of democracy, he has spoken the doom of Empires. To this man of plain Scotch-Irish parentage, this son of an obsure Presbyterian minister, Hapsburgs and Uohenzollerns have come truckling for mercy, only to be told, calmly and sternly, that mankind has no longer any use for them Ihe wonderful, the incredible drama is a theme for a Aeschylus or a Shakcs- >, J n . his sketch in "Pillars of Soaety Mr A -G. Gardiner takes up tho theme and echoes the same eulogistio chorus—and it is well to remember that both writers are Englishmen, and not Americans:— Woodrow Wilson is the best equipped politician in America. His whole career us student, as lawyer, and as professor haa been governed by the deliberate purpose ot qualifying for publio life. . His grandfather Wilson had emigrated* from Belfast his grandfather Woodrow from SootLß.n<J. They and their families were all Presbyterians, and those who were not journalists were Presbyterian ministers boot—and Irish-Scot—press and pulpit—is there any more natural or formidable combination for public life? . . Mr Wil son does great things with an extreme economy of effort. His speeches have the quality of acts. ... It is not that he scorns oratory m its place. It is the instrument through which one touches the general head to fine issues. But when ho comes to business he dismisses rhetoric rie is that rare combination, a thinker Who loves action, a scholar and a man of affairs one who reads Greek and writes shorthand, who combines a luminous idealism with the practicability of a plumber and a sunny smile with a ruthless purpose His courage mounts to any task; but he has a scrupulous tidiness in small things. When he has finished writing he wipes his pon and jputs the cloth back in tho drawer. . He has, what Mr Lloyd George, with all his fine intentions and democrats sympathies has not—a considered philosophy of politics. Mr Gardiner is prone'to comparison between the American President and the British Prime Minister, as, for instance: "Mr Lloyd George is the one masterful man in Iwighsh politics to-day; but his masterfulness exhibits itself in an astonishing supple- ?° S ?k I?? used to be on the football field. He gets the ball at his toe, and threads his way amid the crowd of opponents, darting, dashing, turning, twisting, but never losing his mastery of the ball or his vision of the goal—a miracle of coolenss and agility President Wilson's masterfulness is like' that of Mr Chamberlainhard, combative, direct; no compromise, no concealment, no finesse, but smashing drives straight, from the shoulder." That volume of caustio personal sketches, Uncensored Celebrities," by "E. T. Raymond." has a chapter devoted to Mr Lloyd George, in which the following occurs:—' As things were, he started the world without what is called education, but with such substitute as a lad of quick parts and vivid temperament may pick up at_a village school and from the conversation of ius elders. Such disadvantages may be easily overestimated. There are many worse tutors than the village shoemaker who was his uncle and second father; and it may be doubted whether the Oxford Union offers a better training for the embryo politician than the debasing circle of a Welsh Nohcorformist chapel. At any rate young George scraped together enough information to qualify as a solicitor at the age of 21; he became a practised speaker in two languages before he had need of a razor; and at 15 he knew more of the realities of life than most men do at 30. "He was not, and is not, possessed of formal culture. . It will probably be many years before the world loiowb precisely how it came to pass that the most pronounced Pacifist of the Liberal Cabinet, the man who had declared that we were " building . Dreadnoughts against a phantom," and had but six months before began a passionate crusade against armaments, sided in the fateful decision of August 4, 1914, • against Lord Morley_ and Mr Burns, and with the Prime Minister and Sir Edward Grey. The fact having been taken for granted, its decisive importance has hardly been enough realised. Opposition to war was far ftronger than is generally supposed The great financial interests were against _ participation; so far from the war being a "capitalists' war," it was declared in the teeth of the cosmopolitan money kings. A majority of the Cabinet was either unconcerned or lukewarm; the great Quaker supporters of the Ministry were natunilly adverse; the "Socialists " were up in arms; even the undeniably patriotic Parliamentary leaders of Labour were deeply distrustful. ' Had all these elements been united under a leader of genius, and great Parliamentary skill, the decision of the Cabinet might well have been in favour of neutrality, or at the best Great Britain would have entered the war not only militarily unprepared but divided against itself. It is idle to give the imagination rein as to the conceivable limits of the might-have-been. But it is hardly fanciful to say that! when some instinct saved Mr Lloyd George from a fatal error, it also preserved civilisation from a crowning calamity. If "Tho Big Three" have versatility in common it may perhaps be traced to the, fact that none of them was a success at school. Education, as it is understood today, for concentration, which, persevered in until it becomes a habit, develops ordinarily along the lines of specialisation, which, in its turn, spells death to versatility. The careers of Clemenceau, Wilson, and Lloyd George reveal a striking similarity and a jprofound contrast. Georges Benjamin Clemenceau, as a scholar, "though he was a painstaking lad, was no paragon. Infant prodigies are short lived," comments his biographer. "They wear themselves out too soon. By tho time he was twelve, Georges Clemonceau' was in the fifth class at the Lycee." Of Thomas Woodrow Wilson —the Thomas having been dropped early in his life by mutual consent —Mr Archer says:—"lt is scarcely credible that in a literate household, a highly intelligent boy passed the age of nino before he was even able to read; but it is certain that until ho was fourteen tho only school he attended was one opened in Augusta by one

* (1) " Ctemencean." By Onmflle ThiCrsy. Translnied by E. Alien. London: Hodder and Stongfoton. (fe not..) (2) M Tne Peace-President: A Brief ApprooinHmx." By William . Aroher. London : Ilutchtera and 00. (2s net.) (3) " TTneensorod Celebrities." By E. T. Hav«_f«x3. R iß*«Jiac Uftwin. (fa 8d aci^

• T ;. Derry, a Confederate veteran, whonc qualifications do not seem to havo been of the fugliest." Even when ho went on to the university "his academic record at 1 mice ton was creditable, but not brilliant " -Lho itiensuro of his achievement may be judged from th o statement that "ho stood tlnrty-oighth in a graduating olasj of 106." And as Mr Gardiner points out in liis peculiarly trenchant style. "Mr George did Mot go to Eton; ho went to a penny village school-worse, a WoLsh village school." Mr Jlaymond adds point to this fact when lie writes of Mr Lloyd George: His poor acquaintanco with history and literature are loss tho consequence of lack of opportunity than of his innate dislike of hard study. He is in a sense in dofont through excess of energy. What can bo done at a sitting he docs as well as most men; but he quickly tires of monotonous application, and his only idea of impose is chango of effort. The energy was no doubt inborn; the lack of discipline may bo partly traceable to the desultory education to which he was condemned by tho failure and early death of his father. H„ is fond of referring to himself as a child of the people, and his enemies used to speak of him as an essentially cultureless man. Both descriptions are misleading. Mr T.lovd George belongs to a class with a social pndo no less highly developed than that of tho heraldic gentleman. Essentially different in temperament and training, tho three leaders are agreed in one point; they were all born fighters, and the battles m which they were engaged, although fought in different ways and by contrasting methods, had the same goal in view, tho welfare of the people. The lighters fought in typically nationalistio { fashion. Li France, Clemonceau fought actual duels; in Britain, Lloyd George fought political duels with his foes; while in America, Woodrow Wilson grappled in .masterful fashion with the gigantic trusts. Of Clemenceau, M. Ducray records: "Ho j lias been an inveterate fighter all his Hfo; no takes a bitter pleasure in the struggle for the survival of tho fittest, for he has a tremendous feeling that it is his destiny rV, sh *' and that he nas the power to fulfil his destiny." Tho story of his first duel i s thus related:— In the presence of Faraboeuf, who was l«ter Director of Anatomical Studies in the Facidty of Paris, and who was bound by a warm friendship to Clemenceau, a student of the name of Prompt had made insulting remarks about the latter at table ono day. Faraboeuf had taken him up pretty smartly, and a discussion arose that soon degenerated into a dispute. There were blows exchanged. Clemenceau, who was told about the scene next day, had no desire to leave his comrades tho task of defending him or avenging him. Seconds were called, who did not settle matters at all—quite the reverse. They were honest seconds. Prompt and , Clemenceau, found themselves face to face in the Clamart Wood, with pistols in their hands. ' Two shots were exchanged without result. There is a piquant detail to the story: the adversaries did not know each other then, and havo not seen each other since. Clemenceau's second duel arose out of tho events of the Commune which followed the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. Major Poussarges had talked of Clemenceau in such an insulting way that the latter sent two friends to demand reparation. The weapons chosen were pistols. " I could kill you," Clemenceau declared, " but seeing you are a French officer I'll content myself with wounding you." And he did wound him severely with a bullet in the thigh. "But how man more duels," exclaims his biographer, "his political ' career was. to cost I" A third duel, which is still famous, took place on December 22, 1892, between Clemenceau and Deronlede, at Saint-Ouen, when six shots were exchanged without result. M. Ducray dismisses the affair briefly, simply saying that Deronlede, misled by false reports, accused Clemenceau of underhand dealings. In that most interesting book, "Forty Tears in Paris," Mr W. F. Lonergan gives a somewhat stirring account of the affair: — I was in the Chamber of Deputies on that memorable occasion when Paul Deronlede, founder of the League of Patriots, boldly denounced Clemenceau as the friend of Dr Cornelius Herz, a wire-puller in the Panama affair. The scene has been related in different ways. M. Clemenceau's friends in England talk of Paul Deronlede as a frenzied fanatio, who made himself the laughing stock of the French Chamber when he attacked Clemenceau and coupled him with Dr Cornelius Herz. On the contrary, Paul Deronlede showed great courage at the time. Clemenceau had been for years the master, the dominator of the Chamber. He was alternately hated, admired, execrated, and flattered. Accordingly, there was no laughing at Deronlede, however melodramatic he may have been in his utterances and gestures. There were many of his opponents there who secretly applauded his attack on the masterful man who was feared and hated. I saw Clemenceau pulling himself gether and trying to assume an air of calmness to bluff the gallery, or rather the galleries. It was with suppressed rage that he uttered the words, "Monsieur Paul Deronlede, vous en avez menti." There was a duel, and nobody was hurt. The denunciation of Deronledo, however, had its effect. The connection of M. Clemenceau with the "sick man of Bournemouth," Dr Herz, who was "wanted" so badly during the Panama crisis, had a powerful influence on the public mind. M. Clemenceau was out of Parliament for a long time, and had to return to his journalistic and literary work. He has certainly come to the front again with a vengeance, but he had a long time to wait. What "Panama" meant to M. Clemenceau, "Marconi" very nearly spelt for Mr Lloyd George—namely, social and political ostracism for a period of years. One side of the Marconi affair is referred to by Mr G. K. Chesterton in the Memoir of his brother Cecil, prefaced to the latter's "History of the United States." The issue in so far as it related to Mr Lloyd George is fairly stated by Mr Gardiner:— It is natural that one who is so challenging in speech and action should arouse violent hostility. To put him out of the fighting line had become the first article of Conservative policy. Hence the extreme virulence of the Marconi campaign. His rather casual habit in his own affairs had laid him open to attack on a matter of Judgment rather than of morals, and owing to the fury of the storm that broke over him, he came perilously n.ear disaster. He learned then how little meroy he has to expect if ever the battle goes against him. _ Mr Gardiner proceeds to discuss the fascinating problem of the influence of personality in politics, asking the question, with special reference to a great adventurer like Lloyd George, "Did he make the events, or did the events make him?" This all leads up to an insistence on the fundamental fact that Mr Lloyd George is, above and beyond everything else, a fighter: ' He leaps to battle as joyfully as Lord Herbert of Cherbury. "The first words I heard says thai fiery Welshman in his autobiography, "was: 'Darest thou come down, Welshman?' which I no sooner heard, but, taking a sword in one hand and a target in the other, I did in my shirt run down the stairs open the door suddenly, and charged 10 or 12 of them with that fury that they ran away " That is Mr George's way to the life. A challenge is music in his ears. He is down the stairs and at 'em, and if there are 10 or 12, why, so much the happier He pinks them all with flashing impartiality, wipes his sword and goes back to bed. It was so when, as a schoolboy he roused the young Hampdens of the village school to refuse to repeat the Church Catechism; it was so when, as a solicitor, he broke the tyranny of the county bench, and saw the magistrates filo out one after another rather than withstand his onset; it was so in the Boer war, when he took his life in his hand and fought the popular frenzy it was so m the crisis of the Budget, when he was threatened with disaster if he did not consent to the withdrawal of the land clauses; it was so through the lonestruggle of the Insurance Act. ... He [ will never avoid an issue because it means a fight against great odds. He will attack it the more cheerfully for that fact He loves to go against "10 or 12 of them, for he likes to see them run. Tho same spirit of fight discernible in Clemenceau and Lloyd George is also observablo throughout Woodrow Wilson's public life. Says Mr Archer: "Ho believed profoundly in government by the people in the widest sense of tho word— not in n- ov eminent, by the privileged classes, and "still loss in government b v gangs, oabals and conspiracies. What may have been i'n the first instance an accidental bfas had ripened through study and thought, into a deep and settled conviction. Having made a searching esaminataon of oil farms «f kmMaj

government, he had come to the deliber ate conclusion that when a people has arrived at a certain stage of political intelligence it is' best governed by persons elected to give effect to its predominant will." Summarising the "well-knit body oi doctrine," which President Wilson laid before his countrymen, Mr Archer continues : The gist of his doctrine was that the people must resume control of their own affairs, taking it out of the. hands of predatory millionaires working in. collusion with political bosses on one hand and with irresponsible com.m ittsemen on the other. He believed that the American people were still capable of the effort required to this end, though " their self-reliance had been sappedi by years of submission to the doctrine that prosperity is something that benevolent magnates provide with the aid of the Government." "The American people," he said, .--"are not naturally stand-patters, progress is the word that charms their ears and stirs their hearts." He took no melodramatic view of the forces opposed to him, but he did not under-rate their strength. Here is a remark which evidently speaks from the heart of his experience as an administrator, and which all who have fought the battle of progress will endorse: "For my part, I am very much more afraid of the man who does a bad thing, and does not know it is bad than of the man who does a bad thing and knows it is bad; because I think that in publio affairs stupidity is more dangerous than knavery; because harder to fight and dislodge." A closer and more detailed examination of the attitude and ambitions of "The Big Three" will reveal many other points of ooutr-ast and of dissimilarity. It is impossible to resist a flight of imagination reaching to the point of wondering what, would have been the influence upon the reconstruction noiv proceeding had Clemenceau rem»i- 1 a humble French physician; had L : George rested content as_ a Welsh, attorney; and had Woodrow Wilson lived a life of leisure as President of Princeton University. The marvel of it all is that three such famous fighters should bo the heroes of the Peace- Conference and the chief promoters of the League of Nations.'