BRITISH LIBERAL LEADERS.

Hokitika Guardian, 4 September 1926, Page 4

BRITISH LIBERAL LEADERS.

(Sydney Herald). It has been made increasingly manifest during the last twelve months that the reunion of the British Liberal leaders, Lord Oxford and Air Lloyd George, so widely heralded in 1923, was one more ol expediency than of reality. The debacle of tlie Liberal Party in 1924 was tiie forerunner of aseries of disagreements between tlie two leaders and of their respective supporters; and despite the desperate attempts that from time to time have been made to camouflage them, disputes have continuously widened the breach, until to-day unity appears to be regarded, as almost hopeless. The last straw was the action of Air Lloyd George in absenting himself from the meeting of Lord Oxford’s “Shadow Cabinet” in May last, on the ground, as stated by himself in a letter to liis chief, that the messages addressed to the public by Lord Oxford and other Liberal leaders on the occasion of the general strike wore “declarations of policy made in the Government Press” from which lie dissented. It was argued that the denunciations of the strike made therein should have been l

accompanied by denunciations of the Baldwin Government, “who were equally, if not more, responsible.” It was held by Lord Oxford that as membership of a “Shadow Cabinet” carries exactly the same obligations as mem-, bership of an actual one, such a letter was tuntmount to a resignation, and he so accepted it. On the other band, Air Lloyd George asserts that the letter was only ail expressions of . opinion which, while the Liberals were in opposition, he was clearly entitled to write. . In other words, Mr Lloyd George declares that an attempt is being made to “drive him out of the party,” while Lord Oxford puts it that, so far from driving him out, the fact is that Mr Lloyd George “decided to stay in.” It is a pretty

quarrel, and the English papers recently to hand are full of the details of its alarums and excursions. There is another count “in Lord Oxford’s indictment ot Mr Llovd George which will probably have more weight with the general public. While the general strike was looming even nearer, and even after it had actually commenced, Mr Lloyd George wrote for certnih American papers a series of articles, in which lie painted a very | despondent picture of Britain’s then present crisis and its probable effects. He predicted a lengthy duration of the conflict and the ultimate wearing down of the steadfastness jof the British people through “worry about their vanishing trade.” Lord Oxford, and ' surely wjtli some justice, deplored that “such a presentation of the case should have been offered to the outside world, on tlio authority of an cx-Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Chairman of Liberal Parliamentary Party.” It is true that to this Air Lloyd George

made the old and feeble parry that lie had been misreported; but on his ow.n showing the wording of the article complained of was very little different from the version quoted by Lord Oxford. There can bo no doubt that, at such a time and from such a source, tlio article was a very grave mistake. However indifferently the British public may regard tlio somewhat petty squabble between the two leaders, it is not likely to forgive a British statesman who, in the expressive words of the familiar metaphor, has “fouled his own nest.” The action of Lord Oxford in definitely breaking with his former colleague has been supported by nearly all the “big” men of the party. Lord Grey lias declared flint lie stands “entirely with and behind Lord Oxford in the matter,” while a joint letter “unreservedly supporting the course which you have taken” lias been sent to the Liberal leader by Sir John Simon, Air Walter Runciman, Lords

Lincolnshire, Cowdray, Buckmastcr, and Buxton. Sir Godfrey Collins, and Jfessrs Phillips, Howard, and Pringle. This Inst-injentitf.necl member of the party lias, indeed made himself very conspicuous in the quarrel, going so far as to say upon a public, platform that ’Air Lloyd George “has been for

somo time making overtures to Labour,” and to insinuate that ho was using the funds of the party for the purpose of furthering this unholy alliance. Both Mr Llovd George and the Labour leaders have denied this statement, and it is only fair to .Mr Lloyd George to say that his denial seems to be substantiated by the facts. But in a quarrel of this kind some mud always sticks; and although Mr Pringle seems to have allowed his zeal to outrun his discretion, the allegations ho has chosen to make, however baseless jin reality, are bound to bo believed by many. This is distinctly unfair to Mr Lloyd George: but it has had, also, the effect of bringing to his support, through the sympathy for him which it has created, a number of Liberals who were inclined to blame him for is abstention from the “Shadow Cabinet” and for writing the American articles. The once great Liberal Party is now threatened with extinction, but a, peculiar feature of tho position is that, although Mr Lloyd George has incurred the anger of the leaders, tho majority of the rank and file’ are still .enthusiastically behind him. The cynic might say that the fact till at he is the custodian of the fluids is sufficient to account for this. But the cynic would bo wrong. Despite bis waywardness and bis opportunism, there is something so personally magnetic about “the little Welsh wizard,” something so inherently great about him, that lie compels both admiration and support. And for the most part he worthily compels them. It may be that he will vet become the chosen leader; but whether he, or Lord Oxford, or another shall occupy the post we must hope, for the sake of a country which can ill afford to lose the help of a- great party, that these poor feuds may soon be healed and that tho banner of Liberalism may once again go forward in tho soivice of Groat Britain.