HOME POLITICS

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1926, Page 1

HOME POLITICS

LIBERALS DIFFER. [Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.] LONDON, May 25. ‘ In connection with the split in the Liberal Party, Lord Oxford’s letter to Lloyd George, previously mentioned, says: “I should not be doing my duty as a.leader of tlio Liberals if I did not convoy my regrets at your course during the greatest domestic crisis of our time;” and points out that Lloyd George and his colleagues of the Shadow Cabinet discussed the Liberal attitude to the strike, and decided to condemn, and use such influence as they could exert or command, in iesisting the Trade Unions Congress idadvised, anti-social campaign. It 'then refers to Liberal leaders’ speeches in Parliament and elsewhere in that direction, and deals with Lloyd George’s absence from the Shadow Cabinet, -at which a letter was read from him declaring he was obliged to dissent from the declarations of the Liberal leaders. Lord Oxford says lie considers Lloyd George’s absence a very grave matter, believing it was the primary duty of all responsible Liberals, at such a critical moment, not the least of their leader in the House of Commons to meet and discuss the position, lie finds it impossible to reconcile suefi a refusal with His conception of political comradeship, and finally refers to an article by Lloyd George, published in tlie American press, at a time when it was necessary to demonstrate British unity, in which he gave a highly coloured picture of Britain’s national straits, and predicted a protracted struggle, and the ultimate wearing down of (he people through worry about tlieir vanishing trade. He deplores such presentation of the case to the outside world by an authority such as the ex-Prcmier of Britain, and Chairman of the Liberal Parliamentary Party. He concludes by stating that it gives him real pain to write this letter, which Lloyd George will well know is not dictated by personal feeling. Lloyd George in a lengthy reply to Lord Oxford, says that although lie did not attend the meeting of the Shadow Cabinet, he sent a full summary of his suggestion. He thought that as the previous meeting of tile Shadow Cabinet did not consider the suggestion that unconditional surrender must precede tlio resumption of negotiations and tlifft the Liberal announcement in tlie “British Gazette,” which lie considered was a complete departure from the Liberals’ agreed policy, bad prejudiced the decisions, and it was accordingly unwise, to attempt to amend the announcement for the purpose of avoiding friction. He intended no discourtesy to Lord Oxford and was only anxious to avoid unpleasantness in the hope that tho controversy would blow over. He adds: “My rbsonco from the Shadow Cabinet hardly justifies your provocative letter,” and declares tlie American article contained sentences lie never wrote. Even now ho was not certain that his predictions in the article were wrong owing to the danger of the continuance of the quarrel, unless Parliament assists in the solution. Tho letter concludes: “If there is another Liberal scliism, what is its object? Surely neither my article, nor my absence from the Shadow Cabinet is a reason for it. lam willing to meet you and your colleagues if thereby I can help the Party.”

PRESS COMMENT . LONDON, May 20. Newspapers regard tho Asquith, Lloyd George controversy as a first class political sensation, and likely to result in Lloyd George’s departure from the Liberal Party as it is considered most difficult for an ex-Prcmier to accept an unprecedented public rebuke. from tlie Party Leader. Intense interest is attached to Lloyd George’s speech.at Llandudno on Wednesday. Letters of Mr Asquith and Lloyd George are featured in all the newspapers. The full text occupies two of tho “Daily Telegraph’s” long columns. The “Daily Express” in the frontpage prints an article beaded “Bombshell for I liberal Party,” and describes Mr Asquith’s as the most sensational political letter written for many years. Tho “Morning Post’s” headline is, “Exit- Mr Lloyd George,” but several political writers say it is a. question which will exit, Lloyd George or Mr Asquith. Curiously, neither the “Daily News” nor the “Manchester Guardian,” which voices Asqiiithian views, endorses Mr Asquith’s letter. The former considers that internal party controversy is especially inopportune at the present time; when thousands of miners are oil the brink ol starvation. The “Guardian” describes the letter as violent in tone, and uncoil' incing in argument. The “Morning Post” states: “Lloyd George’s laboured explanations amount to this: ‘That he proposed to support the Government, and at tlie same time put them in the wrong, with tlie r.et result that he overreached himself, and finds himself alone. He was parted from the Liberals, and the Socialists will not have him.’ ”