CHURCHILL’S ACTIONS

Southland Times, Issue 25335, 11 April 1944, Page 5

CHURCHILL’S ACTIONS

FRANK COMMENT LORD BEAVERBROOK’S POSITION (Special Correspondent, N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, April 9. Outspoken ‘comment on Mr Churchill is made in the latest issue of The Economist, surveying the recent vote of confidence. Observing that he acted well within his rights in forcing the vote and in accordance with precedent, it asks if he acted wisely and expresses the opinion that he did not. His professed purpose was to emphasize national unity. His achievement is to create doubts where there were none before. The Economist continues: “Ever since Mr Churchill returned from Morocco he has exhibited signs of a petulant temper most unlike him. He is usually the most magnanimous of men. While one moment he exhorts the nation to keep in mind the main issue, at other moments he goes out of his way to exalt trifles to an importance they do not deserve and would never have received but for his action. “The intervention of an Independent candidate at a bye-election, the impatience of the public over delays in planning, the Government ■ defeat by one vote on a single clause in a bill have nothing to do with the war effort —they are hardly worthy of the notice of the captain-general of the nation. DOUBTERS NOT CONVINCED “To rush at them with a flurry of hard words and over-strong actions is not to convince doubters or rally waverers. It is to humiliate what should be his most cherished support-

ers, to irritate the unconcerned and to sadden his friends. A people like the British in an emergency like the: present, will never hold it against their leader that he insists on having his own way in the big things that are essential to the life of the nation. .It is when he begins to insist on haying exactly his own way in the little things, which are important in their- own sphere certainly, but not vital to the Commonwealth, that they start wondering whether he is quite the man he was.” —- ■ ■ ■- . • . . The article goes on to refer to talk of Mr Anthony Eden resigning from the Foreign Office. It says: “It is .known that Mr Eden has been much disturbed by the recent growth of a phenomenon that is very familiar in British political history and has rarely failed to be noxious—the conduct of diplomacy from No 10 Downing street. Mr Eden’s loyalty to the Prime Minister and ability to collaborate with him are both unquestioned and of long standing. Some new element has beet injected into the relation in recent months—or , perhaps it is more correct to say that some old element is returning with renewed vigour. That element is Lord Beaverbrook, who was with the Prime Minister in Morocco and is believed to have been his adviser since he returned.” SUBMISSION EXACTED The Economist refers io Lord Beaverbrook’s peremptory temperament and adds that the rewaxing of his. star coincides with a new determination on the part of the Prime Minister to exact submissions' from any of his followers who differ from him. . “The advice the Prime Minister has been getting is bad,” states the article. “If it goes on it will finish by doing the impossible—alienating him from a large section, of the country. There probably has never been a Prime Minister who enjoyed such an enormous fund of credit with the people as Mr Churchill, but he has been drawmg on it recently at a very rapid rate. It was made known officially on Friday that Mr Churchill has now decided to postpone any reconstruction of his Cabinet. ■ HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERSHIP Slight Changes In Parties (Rec. 8.20 p.m.) LONDON, April 9. Since Britain’s last general election in 1935 the Conservative membership of the House of Commons has declined by seven per cent, and the Socialist membership has increased by seven per cent. The number of Conservative members has fallen from oo to 363, while the Socialists have increased from 154 to 166. Only four Independents were returned at the general election, but the House now has 31. Explaining his decision to cease large-scale contributions to finance the Common Wealth, of which he is founder, Sir Richard Acland, M.P., told The Daily Mail: “I have only £BOOO capita! to live on for the next six years. When that is gone I shall have no more money.” He added that a company director, Mr Allan Good, and himself had contributed £17,000 of the £20,000 party fund. “Paradoxically, the Common Wealth has been too successful,” he said, “involving heavy expenses. Unless the party’s 10,000 to 15,000 membership pay up the party faces financial disaster.”