The Daily News. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1922. NATIONAL INTERESTS OR PARTY GAIN?

Taranaki Daily News, 17 October 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1922. NATIONAL INTERESTS OR PARTY GAIN?

In the course of his remarkable speech at Manchester on Saturday, Mr. Lloyd George asserted, with unerring prescience, that “the nation .will not forgive parties which sacrifice national interests for party gains.” Yet that is what the Conservative convention in Britain proposes to do—if it can—by driving the Premier from office and endeavoring, by splitting votes at the next general election (already looming near) and possibly enabling Labor to control the destinies of the Empire. “The future,” said Mr. Lloyd George, “is perplexed. The situation of the world and Britain is too grave for any man to play party or personal manoeuvres.” There spoke the statesman charged with the immense responsibility of presiding over a world-wide Empire, which, in the dark hours of its history, was dependent upon the services of the speaker and his colleagues and found them equal to and worthy of the unparalled trust placed in them by the people. All their great gifts, their time and their physical and mental attributes were utilised to win the war, and towering above all others in this effort was Mr. Lloyd George, who was summoned to the helm when those who are now striving their hardest to overthrow him signally failed in rising to the emergency of saving the Empire and defeating the enemy. Mr. Lloyd George rightly reminded his hearers that he never sought the Premiership, which was thrust upon him. His sole desire was to be of service in order that by unity of purpose and effort victory might be won; and he has remained at the helm because the haven of peace has not yet been reached, nor can it be reached until the smaller storms have been allayed. It is a piteous spectacle to see the old party spirit asserting itself in the direction of sacrificing national interests in a great emergency for party gain. The reactionary Conservatives and the “wee free” peace-at-any-priee Liberals are weary of abiding in the wilderness, even to the extent of being willing, if they are unable to handle the reins of power, to combine for the purpose of ousting Mr. Lloyd George from office. They are. being assisted in this party manoeuvring by a section of the Press, including the Manchester Guardian and the London Times, and it is their hope that they will achieve success by making enough noise to attract the votes of the crowd, which always regards noise as the force that will make the walls of Jericho fall. Such is human nature in the mass. The Liberal Party has already closed its doors on the Coalition Liberals; therefore they know they cannot secure a majority in Parliament, 'rhe Conservatives have even a less chance when separated from the Unionists; therefore the only chance of breaking up the Coalition Government is to allow Labor to hold the balance of power, and then, as Mr. Chamberlain demonstrated, “heavy will be the responsibility of those who could not take a national view in a time of national danger.” Direct action will triumph over a Government who, as Mr. Clynes has said, would not be allowed to lead, but must take its instructions from a caucus. Who can contemplate such a dire calamity with equanimity? What has the Coalition Government done to arouse the wrath of those party politicians now in the wilderness? The main accusation is that, of having endeavored to rush the country into war, and on that account has been assailed with 1 11 misrepresentation the like of which no other Government has i had to face in Britain.” Mr. I Lloyd George’s spirited and I straightforward presentation of I the facts concerning the Near ■ East trouble requires no explana- ■ tion; it speaks for itself, forcibly I and convincingly. As New Zealand identified itself with the Imperial Government’s policy in thia

grave matter, it is only natural that the people will evince particular interest in the facts as presented by the British Premier, who stressed that he did not improvise a policy regarding Turkey, but inherited it—a legacy from those who would now hurl him into the wilderness—if they can. Mr. Lloyd George emphasised that he would play no party or personal game. He rightly places national security and prosperity above party gain, and though he may welcome relief from the shackles of office and become a mere spectator in the political arena, watching how his successor “forgives Germany her reparations and yet make France love Britain still more; pay the United States, . yet forgive countries everything they owe Britain; give more to the unemployed, and yet reduce taxation.” It will be a calamity of incalculable magnitude should the pack of office seekers succeed in their machinations. Great as was the danger to Britain during the war, the present menace is far worse, and calls for a supreme effort on the part of the nation to stand by those who have proved their fidelity and administrative ability and not to permit a change merely for the sake of a change. No one is perfect, but national security is paramount.