Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, AUGUST 3rd, 1.920. MR. LLOYD GEORGE.

Hokitika Guardian, 3 August 1920, Page 2

Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, AUGUST 3rd, 1.920. MR. LLOYD GEORGE.

There is no other man in the whole Empire who stands out so prominently in public affairs as Mr Lloyd George. During the years of the war he was an asset of unmeasured' value. In the aftermath of the .war he has come to nu the ,sheet anchor of the hopes of the nations, for lie wields under his benigu personality a wonderful power which ’he is exercising for the benefit of mankind. He is a man much written of, and a reviewer says that Mr Harold Spencer is in many respects excellently qualified to write the biography of the Ppime Minister, His personal friendship with Mr Lloyd George is of long standing; his admiration for him is profound. That indeed is responsible for a certain weakness in the life. Mr Spencer never erisicises; his enthusiasm will not admit the possibility of error in his subject, lyyorything that Mr Lloyd George’s career which, in the opinion of life political opponents 'at least, ,showg(i that liis taste and judgment were pot always infallible, are either slurred over or not mentioned a,t all. The note of sustained eulogy detracts from the merits of the book as a biography, but it is nevertheless interesting. Mr Spencer gives an intimate picture of Mr Lloyd George's youthful days in .the Welsh village where liis uncle did so much to guide his feet on the road to success, and describes his early forensic triumphs gained at the expense (Of reactionary magistrates and truculent landlords, his venture into the wider sphere of public life, his growing reputation and the embittered political controversies which ppde.ql only with the war, Mr Lloyd George was essentially a combative type; he fought from the lolve of fighting no less than from j,h,e love of a cause. As he has himself said, Jig could underst-nd a man | opposing a war, but lie ffthld not understand a man waging a war aifih half !i hoart. He always fought with the glov.es off, and, could take as well as give hard knocks. He has grown more mellow with the passage of years, liis' humour is more genial, his spirit .m° re conciliatory; but on occasion .there arc flashes "of the old fire; his tongue can still lasli its -victims with all the old scathing satire. It was singunriy fortunate for Britain that during the .whole of the war, Mr Lloyd George was in office first as Mr Asquith’s lieutenant, and subsequently ns Prime Minister. He alone could command the confidence of the whole nation. The Conservatives of course had hated him most cordially, but when they saw that he was “sound” on the question - of the war, their antipathy was transformed into ardent approbation. H ( is with democracy were known ; he could do things which if attempted by a Conservative leader would have provoked the most i intense hostility. The man who had denounced the dukes in his famous Lime | house speech, who had carried the Naj tional Insurance Act jn the face of the | most violent opposition, and had been i Mr Asquith’s right band in “bringing j I the Lords to heel,” could not he suspect- j ed of any anti-demicratic designs. La- ! hour as a whole trusted him, and that- ■ trust was reflected in Britain’r ef- i fort. Even the enemy recognised tli,e greatness of his work in the - Allied cause. Hindenburg and Ludendorff have both contrasted the failure of German statesmen to give Germany a lead and to rally the nation with the force driving power, and singleness of purpose of Mr Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau. It is significant that, of all British statesmen, he was during the war the best abused in the enemy Press. Mr Spencer suggests that ip this consists the finest tribute to the value of his services.

Thei-k will be endless comment on the reopened question of alien labor for Samoa, where New Zealand is charged with the care of the late German possessions. As the Dominion newspaper puts it which is the lesser of two evils, to leave the European plantations an abandoned wilderness and a breeding ground from, which the rhinoceros beetle will threaten the whole eocoanut industry of Samoa, or to maintain these plantations with indentured Chinese labour? Mr Holland and friends would interpose a negative on the latter proposal, hut they have no alternative | for controlling the insect pest which j all the evidence goes to show is a very ; real menace to European and native 1 plantations alike. The world cannot he governed by negation—it would simplify things if it could—hut only by facing realities and meeting them to the best of our ability. We would very much like to see Samoa run without any Chinese labour, but we fail to perceive on the facts as disclosed how the situation is to be r»et without it. Even the missionaries there know of no alternative, and their bias might be expected to make them rank the welfare of the native population its the first consideration. We hope that Chinese Labour will have to be resorted to only as a more or less temporary expedient, and that the Government will be scrupulously particular to see that it is conducted under such conditions as are just and fair to all.

In advising intending immigrants to keep away from New Zealand becouse of the housing shortage the Wellington llentpayers’ Association, says a local paper, overlooks one important fact—that whatever housing shortage we have here is a small thing compared with that existing in the United Kingdom. Mr Nosworthy quoted figures a few days ago which showed that in consequence of the stoppage of immigration during the war and our losses in killed we are short of our normal peace increase of population by about 38,000 persons. In Darlia-ment last week Mi Fraser M.P., when pinned down by Mr Jones-, declared that “this country can keep millions more than we have hero at present.” This is one of the numerous cardinal facts and inconvenient realities for which the scheme of things as seen by Official Labour seldom finds room. Do the Labour Representation Committee and the Bentpayers' Association really beTieve that people are 1 letter off in Britain than in New Zealand? or is their idea, of international brotherhood limited to keeping a good thing to themselves and scaring comrades abroad off it by spreading cock-and-bull stories? If they think conditions so superior in Britain, why stand in their own Ight by remaining here, and suffering all the hardships which they would have others escape? Unfortunately, as we know very well, they have not the slightest intention of departing. They are merely birds with a taste for fouling their nests, and their talk is nothing hut a mixture of arrant hujnhug and crass selfishness.