THREE UNJUST MEN

Shannon News, 23 April 1926, Page 4

THREE UNJUST MEN

YVHIGS ON THE GKEEN. A STUDY IN TEMPERAMENT. (By An Old Stager.) ' LONDON, Jan. 14. Wigs have been on the green this week with a vengeance. And they were the wigs of really eminent Whigs. Our political world has not trembled to such seismic shocks for many a day. As proof positive that the llgntirg has been really “bluggy” it is enough to mention one word. Not since Joe Chamberlain \as iu his resilient prime, and, next possibly to the Devil and the Unspeakable Turk, tie best hated man in English pVditi'.v, has the epithet “Judas” been heard. Whenever party feeling is, really fiercely aroused, and the protagonists are clawing each other with the gloves off in the gory arena, the name of that errant apostle hurtles through the inspissated air. ' When politicians start calling each other Judas, you know they really mean it. It is like serving out ball cartridge to the troops. You know it is no longer sham fighting or grand manoeuvres, but in the language of Gunga Din’s friend, genuine slaughter. And genuine slaughter it has been this week sure enough. And the humour as well as the tragedy of it is that our dear old friend, Sir Alfred Mond, the mild-est-mannered man that, ever scuttled from what he obviously thinks is a sinking ship, is the villain of the piece. Mr Lioyd eGorge’s “forward” land policy proved more than the genial Sir Alfred could swallow. And yet, in his political time, he has gulped down one or two pretty tough camels. For a level-headed industrial magnate, with a Liverpool accent and a Byzantine intonation, reared on the incorruptible green pastures of Manchester .Cobdenism, championship of the Safeguarding of Industries Act cannot be regarded as a gnat. So Sir Alfred, after fidgetting about for months under the strain of Mr Lloyd George’s latest fancy in vote-winners, has at last thrown in his hand. He has written a letter to his old friend, the Earl of Oxford, explaining that politically he is all right on the flat, but that for the life of him he cannot follow the agile “L.G.” over the sticks. Not feeling himself to be adequate as a steeplechaser, he has decided to resign from the Liberal Party, and join up with the comfortable legions of his ancient foes, the respectable Tories. And so the Liberal Party loses, at the very nadalr of its fortunes, a sturdy champion, a wealthy supporter, and one of the best debaters that ever trounced an economic fallacy on the floor of the House of Commons.

This would be a grievous blow in any case. But that it should have occurred over his pet land scheme, with which the Welsh Wizard hopes to rehabilitate the Liberal Party and his own political fortune, simply stings "L.G.” to the quick. Like our inimitable lady friend, Mistress Oiiirklv "L.G.” cannot abide swaggerers And Obviously h£ regards Sir Alfred’s valedictory gesture as sheer swagger. The fiuick « doit, imperious mentality of a Celt li Mr Lloyd George,, nourished on . stimulating air of the Cymrian moutain tops, and not amid the ex ■ atmosphere of Byzantine landscape, is terribly impatient of such a P sonal affront as this. Without wal - ing for Lord Oxford's reply to »» Alfred’s letter, Mr Lloyd George

tired to his study in Cheyne Row, and produced his own response. It was a bitter document, adroit and waspish, and it smote the Ishmaelite hip and thigh. It was tolerably stingy all through, but the coup de grace was in the tail. Mr Lloyd George wound up with the tumultous reflection that Sir Alfred Mond had merely been true to type, and “gone to his own place.” That is a familiar Biblical phrase that many times occurs in a Book with which the Nonconformist “L.G.” is well acquainted. But there is no doubt to which of the many applications the ex-Premier alluded. It will be found by the curious student in the Acts of the Apostles, where the brotherhood elect a new Apostle, Matthias, in the place of Judas Isfeariot. The actual words applied to the latter are that,, having transgressed, he had gone “to his own place.”

Meanwhile, the backslider, though smarting under this tirade, vows that he will make no reply to anything that may be hurled at him in the way of abuse. “Whatever he says,” is Sir Alfred’s naive phrase, “I shall say nothing.” On the whole, a very wise and prudent self-denying ordinance—in the case of so formidable an adversary as the little Welsh attorney, whose famous powers of vituperation have caused a good many pretty' doughty warriors to adopt the tactics of Achilles, and Stick resolutely to their dugouts. In vivid contrast with Mr Lloyd George’s impetuous onslaught, when it came, was the austere dignified reproof of the Earl of Oxford. He expressed regret that Sir Alfred had. neglected the customary practice of a persona] conference with his party leader before . announcing his disallegiance. And there for the moment the. quavrcl rests, though Sir Alfred’s dutiful son and heir, not a very considerable politician, has promptly announced that he i- s following in father’s footsteps.

It. would be hard to find a more ill-sorted triumvirate than these three prominent politicians who have just been so unjust to each other. Mr Lloyd George unites .the impetuosity and the subtlety of the Celt; the Earl of Oxford combines the tenacity and the subtlety ,of the Saxon; Sir- Alfred Mond associates the perspicacity, the suavity and the subtlety of the Levant. They each have one quality in common. But that quality is, to the politician of all ages, what his last is to the proverbial shoe-maker. The affair has caused a deal of commotion in the political world. Mr Stanley Bandwin has gone out of his way publicly to welcome the new recruit to the Conservative ranks. There is some talk of putting him at the Board of Trade, if presently 4 SlrPhilip Cunliffe-Lister is promoted to the House of Lords. But the sad-eyed "Daily News” headed its editorial leader on the subject: “Sic Transit Gloria Mondi.” And there you are!