MR LLOYD GEORGE’S DEFENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18733, 11 December 1922, Page 4

MR LLOYD GEORGE’S DEFENCE

GREAT RECEPTION AT MANCHESTER. CREDIT CLAIMED FUR PEACE. PERILOUS SITUATION AVERTED. OHANAK POLICY JUSTIFIED. (From Oi r Own Coriif.spondkxt.) LONDON, October 29. Seven thousand applications wore received for 300 seats available at the luncheon given to Mr Lloyd George at Manchester. The Lancashire roads from Mobberley Hall to Manchester, a distance of IS miles, which the Prime Minister travelled by motor car. were lined with people. Outside the Hotel Alelropole. where he was dining, there was a dense crowd waiting for him to come out. The arrival of the Premier’s ear at tile Manchester Reform Club was the signal for a great popular demonstration.' Addressing. the crowd from the steps of the chib, he said ; “I thank this groat gathering for greeting tnq to this city to put tho case of the Government, in their efforts which they have made to establish European peace and to prevent bloodshed from spreading throughout Eastern Europe.” Whatever the adverse comments of the press, it is probable that this rather remarkable outburst of public affection is a fair criterion of the position Air Lloyd George holds in the minds and the hearts of the people to-day. It takes an infinite amount of journalistic bludgeoning to displace a man, whatever his present faults, if he has once been esteemed somewhat as a hero by the British public.

There was much, however, in the Premier’s speech to which exception has been taken. “Disappointing,” is the word most generally applied by Ihe opposition press, “Lacking in courtesy, restraint, and dignity,” is another accusation. “It was oblivions of fit's position of the British Empire as the largest Mussulman Power,” is the comment of The Times. “It failed utterly to answer any of tlie main criticisms that have recently been addressed to the Government.” Much of the speech was devoted to an explanation of (he Government’s foreign policy in the recent Near East question. So far ns domestic politics are concerned, the whole question is whether the Coalition Ministry shall continue or not—whether a return to party politics is possible in the present state of the country and with the present strength of the. allied parties. No announcement has been made regarding the date of the elections, which by general consent cannot bo long postponed. The Premier stated he would play no personal or party game, and he dwelt upon the thoughts that would console him “if, in consequence of that, I arn driven alone into the wilderness.” P OLIT fC A L SITUATION.

"There is orilv one thing that: can 'drive" the Prime Minister into retirement." savs the Daily "as distinct from "a voluntary and self-imposed resignation such as ho hrs often considered, and, indeed, as he tells ns, discussed with his Conservative colleagues, who nersuadnd him against this stop. That tiling is Hie forro-il rupture of the Coalition by the act of the Conservative Parry; nnd such rupture, ns we know, is to be urged upon the party's national conference a month hence. It would seem, therefore, that the Prime Minister intends lo be guided to a large extent by the decision to which that, conference shnll come: and if thut be so. it follows that the talk about an immediate dissolution, before the conference meets i'lirl before l\'"liament reassembles—-the two dates practically coincide—has been wide of 'the »nark. We trust that events will

prove this conclusion to bo right. There arc masons enough ajrsunst an immediate appeal to_ the country in the present state of the Near Kastern affair, the npnroncbiiif culmination of the Government's Irish policy on the date set forth for the ratification of the treaty, and the occurrence of the municipal elections a fortnight, hence.To these must lie added the obvious wisdom of nllowinjr the Conservative Pnrty an opportunity to review the position, and to discuss th° form of co-operation with the. Condition Liberals to he ohserved the election comes. It is ovident. (hen. (but a very pravo responsibilitv is likely to be laid upon the rmrty '' o nf°rence that, is to

moot on November la. Tl is equal!v evident. no"' that all of (hose best .entitled to advise the conference as to its decision are united in Mm purpose of dissuading : t from a slot) which would smash the Coalition and send Mr Lloyd George and his Liberal colleagues into retirement.” “T WOLLD WELCOME FREEDOM.” “Three years ago I was anxious to go out,” said the Premier, in his speech. “I felt, that I could render belter service to mv country in a more independent nosition. and I begged Mr Bouar Law to take charge. He declined. At t*o t-?Hnning of tins year I wrote to Mr Chamberlain and suggested that it would be better that as he was the leader of the narty that commanded a majority in the House of Commons. and ho should take it up, and I promised everv support so long as (he noliev of pacification and no reactionary legislation, and that tlm contract, with Ireland was carried out. My colleagues, after consulting together, unanimously thought otherwise. “I never sought the position, I never wished to retain it, and T will serve my country in any capacity so Jong as God gives me the strength. No man has had more loyal colleagues than I have. We have worked for no mean cuds, in a comradeship of hard toil always for our common country. I certainly would regret any severance with men who treated me personally with such honourable fidelity, who have helped me along in policies that excited indignation / even amongst certain quarters of their own supporters because (hey regarded it as in the interests of the country. But I would welcome freedom. It would he verv interesting to watch others handling difficulties which they seem to think can be treated so easily. AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE.

“I shall watch many things. 1 shall watch, for instance, to see how wo are to forgive Germany all the reparations and make France love us more than ever. I shall watch how we are to pay the United States of America what we owe her, and forgive every other country everything they owe us—have/to belter army and navy and Air Force, have more houses for everybody, whilst at the same time rents are not being put up, strengthen your education system, and give more to the unemployed, aud yet make the taxation of this country lighter. I throw myself on the people whose cause I have never betrayed during the thirty-two years of a strenuous public life. There are just, there are generous people, and to those who have done their best to render them service, and I claim to have rendered them service—they will see fair play. 1 am not afraid of the future. Had I betrayed the people the Opposition which has been put forward : n certain quarters would never have arisen. The supreme task of statesmanship at this hour is the pacification of the nations so that the people shall have leisure to devote themselves to the peaceful avocations of life, to fill up the depleted reservoirs from .which we all draw. ‘•My comae is a clear one. I will support with all rny might any Government that devotes itself and lends its energy to that task with single-mindedness, fearlessness, and with resolution, provided they do not embark upon measures which inflict permanent injury upon the country, whether these measures bo reactionary or revolutionary. That rices not mean that I pledge myself to support the inefficiency, ihe vacillation. the infirmities in any Government (a- any parly; but any Government that

has not pursued that course T will assist witli all rny might. That is my policy.” LORD GLADSTONE. A few days previous to the Prime Minister’s speech Lord Gladstone had spoken in Manchester and severely criticised the Government’s foreign policy. Mr Lloyd George’s reply to Lord Gladstone was severe and, according to (he Opposition press, lacking in taste. "It, was rather a shock to me to see n Gladstone denouncing ns betausn we were trying to protect the great minorities against the lurk,” he said. ‘T would have taken it from almost anyone else but a Gladstone! Ho was peculiarly offensive. No rino has greater respect for the name which he hears. I know (he difficulties of any man without adequate gifts—(laughter)--who his to carry through his life a. very great name, hut. if he only does it with becoming modesty—(laughter)—he would so cure the compassion, if not the respect, of everyone. I am sorry to say Lord Gladstone has never played that part, and he has given himself airs such as his great- father never in his most exalted days ever took upon himself. Ho has actually excommunicated us from the Liberal Party. Rut Lord Gladstone excommunicates us. What, service has he rendered Liberalism? I know of no service except one. Ho is the best living embodiment of the Liberal doctrine that quality is not hereditary.—(fioud laughter and cheers.) WRONG KIND OF CHRISTIAN. ‘T am sorry, but I have stood it. I cannot tell you now long, speech after speech

of intolerable abuse. Inm told I ought to bear ij like a Christian. But (hero are too many people about in (lie world now who think it is the business of a Christian lo allow himself to ho massacred bv Turks and pro-Turks without even striking a blow. I arn not that sort of Christian, and as long as f have a sword in my hand and Cod gives me strength to use it. I will.”—(Cheers.) [fere it may be appropriate to quote, the Morning Post “The apparent frivolity with which the Prime Minister deals with the most delicate questions of international moment seems to indicate that Mr I.loyd George is temperamentally incapable of understanding even the elements of statesmanship. Invective couched in the vernacular mav doubtless entertain a miscellaneous audieneo. but at. what- a price? Cannot Air Llovd George defend a policy, or _ the lack cf a policy, and retain the amenities of civilised intercourse? Me know of no other Prime Minister of England in history who. anticipating in imagination—or. for aught wo know, in fact —Ins retirement, from office, would proceed gleefully lo enumerate the items in the appalling eonfusion ho leaves behind him. and to gloat over the troubles of his successor.”

OUTRAGE ON BRITISH FAIR PLAY. To the larger question —the Imperial question—of the Government's policy with veffmd to Hie Near K>ist. the Prime Ministor devoted (ho greater part, of Ilia attention. "The neonle of this country." lie said, "do not Relieve tint (he Government drliherntely endeavoured to rush this country info war. On the contrary, they

regard that, infamous charge as an outrage en British .fairplay. We ensued peace; we insured peace. We hive not been war. mongers; we have been peacemakers. We tool; the .oniv sure. mad to peace, and we have reached it. It has been largely due to the tact, the judgment, and the resolution of our representative nt Constantinople. Kir Charles Harrington, and our sagacious adviser. Sir Horace Rutfboul. It has also been largely attributable to the patience and the zeal of Lord Cnrzon; but, as Sir Charles Harrington said, and it is no derogation to either of them, it would have been inmossiblc, had it: not hern, thai resolution -nnd firmness were disolaved in sending support, to Sir Charles Harrington which impressed the Oriental mind. "Whilst we were engaged in n. roost difficnlt (ask we have been assailed with misrepresentation, with abuse, with innuendo, such a? no Government in conducting international affairs has ever been, subjected lo before. The country resent* it. At, the time we could not answer the charge. We had to lie quiet while it was suggested that we were warmongers—that we were thirsting for blood—for the reason that you cannot place the whole of (he circumstances before the country without, interfering with the work of our representatives on the spot. But the lime has come when I am enabled to speak—and I mean to do

so. NEAR KAST POLICY. '•What wore our objects iu the action we took ? They were threefold. 'lho first was to secure (ne freedom of the Straits for the commerce of all nations. The second was to prevent war lroin spreading into Europe, witti all the inconceivable"" possibilities of a conflagration. And the third was to pievent, the repetition in Constantinople and in Greece ot the scenes of an intolerable honor which had been enacted in" Asia JUinor during the last six or seven years.' •Vital to us, vital to humanity, we could not have those Straits barred witnout giving away the uiggest and the most important prize which we won by our victory over xurkey in the Great War, and which lost us so much in life and in treasure, as to ttie spreading of the war into Europe, you have only to think of what would have happened if Turkey, flushed with victory, wuh no army to resist, crossed the Bosphorus, passed into '1 brace, and occupied Constantinople. Do ycu think they would have stopped in Eastern Thrace? Do you think they would have camped on the Maritza? Who was to stop them? Who would have slopped them going into Western Thrace, possibly passing into Walonica'' You know whit, that means. War! And the war of 1914 practically began in the Balkans. ■']. am not going into the question of who is responsible in Smyrna. I am not going to discuss whether the Greeks provoked

the Turks, or the, Turks the Greeks. It is enough for me to call attention to' the fact that since 1914 the Turks, according to testimony—official testimony we have received —have slaughtered in cold blood a million and u-half of Armenians—men. women, and children —and five hundred thousand Greeks without any provocation at all. SUCCESS DUE TO FORCE. '"Sir Charles Ilarington attributed the iact that lie succeeded largely to the reinforcements we had sent hiui, and if you have any doubt about it, just you hark back to tli<> speech which he delivered before the

Turks. Sir Charles Ilarington was doubtful whether they were going to sign, and this is Ins last appeal. He told the Turks that conciliation had been carried to the utmost limit ,and warned Jsmet Pasha that Great Britain hud on the spot a very large and 'powerful fleet, large numbers of aeroplanes'and guns, and a by no means negligible force of infantry; in fact, that Great Britain would be a very awkward enemy, but a very valuable friend. "We were advised by both our naval and military authorities that we could not assure tiie freedom of the Straits for peaceful commerce unless we held both sides. The Turks advanced upon us, the French returned, and the Italians followed close at their heels. \Ve were told in speeches and In the press that- it was our business to do what our Allies were doing. Suppose ve had followed meekly behind Franco? The Kemalist forces would have been at Chanak. jhe next thing that would have happened would have been the crossing of the Straits. Gallipoli was held by a very wenk Senegalese battalion with order that they were not to fire on the Turks. Both sides of the Straits would-.have been in the Kemlaist hands. Do you think yon- would have got them out? You would have gone to the Peace Conference and said : 'Will you please get away from Chanak and Gallipoli?' and Kemal would have said: '"So, we will guarantee the Straits for you.' "Would anyone have gone to drive them out of the position afterwards if they had not yielded before the conference ? Of course not. You know what it cost before to attempt it. To hold it is a very different mitter. Something would have happened in the Bosphorus. They would have been in Constantinople. ACTION OF THE FRENCH.'

“Then onr critics say: Why did you not have an understanding with your Allies? Wo did. Only a few weeks ago we received a message from the French Government that if the Greeks or the Turks invaded the neutral zone they would have to ho resisted by force by the Allies. W’o accepted (hut. Wo thought they meant it. How were we to believe that it was only intended for one side. That message was followed by another, in which the French, Italians, and the British warned Mnstapha Kemal not to cross the neutral zone. Not only did wo think so, but the generals also thought so. and troops were sent by the Allied generals, but they had to bo recalled.

‘‘lt i.s no use trying- to bluff a first-rate fighting animal, and the Turk is that whatever else he is. You can try bluff with cowards. It i.s no use with really brave men. They know instinctively when yon mean business and when you do not. It is always u mistake to threaten unless you mean it. and it is because not merely we threatened, but wo meant it, and the Turks knew that wo meant it. that you have peace now. PROMPTITUDE OP Tin-: DOMINIONS.

"Before I dismiss that pari- of the topic, let me say how much we owe to the promptitude and the alacrity and the enthusiasm with which Australia and New Zealand supported us. The fact, Unit they wired lr> say there were thousands, tens of thousands, of Australians und New />enlandeis ready to come over so as to prevent the graves of Gttllipoli from being desecrated, that contributed to this happy result.'' Referring to the criticism of Lord Grey and Mr Asqnith, the Prime Minister said: "Jt is no use standing on a cairn of gigantic failures and throwing stones at people who have to work through difficulties which ar» just, as great as his. You may succeed or you may fall, The task is always a complicated one. The task is always a 'battling one, and all you cun do is to keep nt it and use every imohus at your disposal. The criticism should bo dispensed with great care, great intolerance, and even with great charity when you are dealing with foreign affairs. "I don't want to use any bitter v.ords if I can avoid it about old colleagues. I am told our Eastern policy h>:iu been a series of improvisations which I have flung out of what is supposed to be a rather fertile hiain just, to suit the caprices of the moment. What has been that policy? The policy undoubtedly was, first of all, to secure tlm freedom of the Straits. The second was to lake away from Turkish rule the non-Christian populations whom you could not. entrust to Turkish charge WHOSE POLICY? ''Whose policy was that? I did not improvise it. I rhino into it. When I came into office in 1916 I found n. series of agreements with Russia, France, Italy, and even Greece, which completely " partitioned

Turkey. Thorn was only a small strip of Anatolia left to the Turks. Who did that? Lord Grey. Mr Asquith. I was a member of the Government, and I approved of it. and I make no complaint about it. But I want to say it was not. my policy. More than that, that policy was approved by Liberals and Conservative*. and I think I may say Labour leaders. Titov wore all members of the Cabinet that dealt with it. Lord Balfour, Mr Bonar Law. Lord Lansdowne. Mr Chamberlain, as well ns Lord Grey, Mr Asquith, Mr Churchill, and myself, we were all committed to it. but (ho direction was in the bands of Mr Asquith, and Lord Grey, and it was not a policy which I initiated. I came into it. Turkey bud been almost completely partitioned by agreements, entered into with various Powers before I ever became Prime Minister. Why did it; fail? It failed owing to circumstances over which neither Lord Grey, nor Mr Asquith, or myself had the slightest control —Russia’s collapse.” ' FRENCH RESENTMENT. Whether the. Paris papers reflect, the French viewpoint any more than London papers reflect the opinions of the peonlo of England, ii; is difficult to say. The fact, remains that the Premier’s reference to the French attitude in regard to Chanak is resented bv a number cf prominent journals. The Tcmns questions whether Mr Lloyd George's description of the Turks ns ferocious animals will tend to give Angora much confidence in the pending peace conference. and expresses the opinion that l he; •e is good reason, now' that the British Premier has spoken, to be anxious for the future. "French policy is working for peace, bill Mr Lloyd George’s pob'e-v is working in the opposite sense. Why?” The Temps -characterises the Premier’s accusations against France as outrageous, and insists bluntly (hat. bis charge that. France lias broken her word is false. "He h’s addressed to bis country’s Allies.” says The-Temps, “words that arc more hurtful

than anv enemy Government flung at them during (he war.” TABLES TURNED. The Matin, remarks that whatever effect the speech may have in arranging the Premier’s affairs at homo, it will not he.p British affairs in the East. "Mr Lloyd George has succeeded in inventing a fresh form cf infallibility—namely, transformable infallibility. He was infallible when, be offered Smyrna to the Italians, when lie offered it to the Greeks, when lie again gave it to the Italians. and when he allowed it to he retaken bv the Turks. It is a veritable windfall for us. however, after having been reproached by him with having made too much use of force, to be reproached by him to-day with not having sufficiently practised it and to hear him congratulate England on having used force in ottr place.”

A French semi-official Note deals on the one hand with the reproach that France abandoned Great Britain bv withdrawing her troops from Chiuiak and on the other with (he statement that peace in the rcear East was preserved owing to the firm attitude of the British Government.

The Note points out that General Harington, according to his own statements, had not sufficient forces to arrest a Turkish advance against the Straits. It states: “The uncompromising attitude maintained at that time at Downing Street —notably,in the appeal for military help from the dominions, the Allied Governments, and the Allied Powers in the Balkans was not such as would calm the Nationalist loaders.”