The Southland Times THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1940. The Removal of Mr Hore-Belisha

Southland Times, Issue 24027, 18 January 1940, Page 6

The Southland Times THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1940. The Removal of Mr Hore-Belisha

PUBLIC opinion in Britain may not be, seriously disturbed by the mystery which surrounds the retirement of Mr HoreBelisha from the War Office, for individual changes in the Government are minimized by the background of larger events against which they occur. But the mystery cannot be dismissed without interested discussion, especially since it has been deepened by the statements made yesterday in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said flatly that he did not propose to give a full explanation. Nevertheless he mentioned some of the motives attributed to him in rumours, and by denying that they were based on fact he narrowed the scope of further speculation. He declared that there had been no quarrel between Mr Hore-Belisha and the Army chiefs, that there would be no change of policy, and that th® Cabinet had fully approved the Minister’s Army reforms. The only clue to Mr Chamberlain’s real motive was provided in a reference to difficulties “arising out of Mr Hore-Belisha’s very great qualities.” This somewhat Delphic comment seems to imply that the Minister was advancing too far and too rapidly, and because vigour and brilliance are qualities that should be valued by the Government in war time it is difficult not to suspect that it was the direction rather than the tempo of the advance which disturbed the Prime Minister.

Slender Evidence Mr Hore-Belisha’s speech was probably less revealing than Mr Chamberlain’s. He said the things that were expected of him, and most persons will admire the way in which he was able to refrain from any hint of resentment over what must have been a severe personal disappointment. The one part of his speech which appeared to have a significant emphasis was his reference to democratic reforms in the Army. He insisted that these changes were the collective responsibility of the Army Council, but in one sentence could be traced a note of personal feeling. “It did not occur to me,” he said, “to consider that we were making the Army too democratic to fight for democracy.” The question which immediately presents itself here is whether such considerations occurred to somebody else. There is no way of judging from the slender evidence. But sometimes it is possible to discover indirect evidence; and in this case it is interesting to notice that neither' of the Opposition Party leaders made any serious attack on the Prime Minister, although where democratic principles are involved they are always quick to speak their minds. A probable inference is that, as on previous occasions of national importance, Sir Archibald Sinclair and MrAttlee have been taken into Mr Chamberlain’s confidence and that they see no reason to disagree with his decision. Until the end of the war, when most secrets will be explained to a world that may be too weary to take much notice, there is little more that can be said about the removal of. Mr Hore-Belisha.