1923.]

Mr. Lloyd George on the Government.

[101

believed and hoped that, if this country were confronted by a situation similar to that in which Italy found itself at the present moment, public opinion, however provoked and indignant, would say to the Government: "You must use the League of Nations and not resort to the old method of settling matters by force." Dissatisfaction with the Government's foreign policy was about this time strongly voiced by Mr. Lloyd George, who was the first public speaker to appraise correctly the pass to which it was bringing the country. At the annual meeting of the Welsh National Council held at Llandridnod Wells on September 7, Mr. Lloyd George was re-elected president, and he delivered a speech in which he unsparingly attacked the Government. Not only, he said, had the Government failed to redeem its promise of "tranquillity" and better conditions at home and abroad, but it had miserably failed to uphold British prestige, whether in its dealings with Turkey or with France or with Italy. While France was hammering the life out of Germany and Italy was strangling Greece, Great Britain was not allowed to interfere. That had not been the case in 1914 nor in 1922; but now that they had done the job it was "Hands off, Britain!" Their advice to Italy in regard to the League of Nations was sound, but it was badly tendered, and exposed them to a serious rebuff. The practical acceptance by the Council of Ambassadors of Signor Mussolini's plan would mean that the British Empire was being snubbed out of Europe. He ascribed the Government's failure chiefly to the paralysing effect of Die-Hardism. The present condition of the world required courage, resolution, nerve, and pertinacity. The Government could not show those qualities when the body to which they owed their existence was against such a policy. The Government satisfied their consciences with blustering despatches, and their followers by not carrying them out. In his opinion the Conservative experiment was bound to fail, and it would fail because Die-Hardism would make it impossible for statesmanship to have fair play. Turning to home affairs, Mr. Lloyd George said that Liberalism stood between the two Die-Hards who threatened to get control of the country-the Conservative Die-Hard and the Socialist die-hard; they must see to it that Liberalism was the only live thing left. But for that purpose there must be unity, and unity could only exist on a basis of equality, co-operation, and partnership, not on a morass of suspicion, distrust, and recrimination.

On the next day Mr. Lloyd George received the freedom of several boroughs in South Wales, and was everywhere received with an enthusiasm which showed that in that part of the world his popularity had not waned. Speaking at Brecon Mr. Lloyd George declared that Great Britain was not so impotent as their Continental friends seemed to imagine. Great Britain preferred peace with her neighbours; but he did not like the way in which she was treated as being of no account. If any peril came

again in any quarter, the country, he said, would soon forget its disputes, and they would be one people standing for the honour, majesty, and life of their native land.

On the saine day (September 8) Sir Robert Horne, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, like Mr. McKenna, had deserted.politics for banking, addressed a political gathering at Ayr in order to break a lance with M. Poincaré over the question of the French debt to England. In orthodox Conservative style, and in contrast to Mr. Lloyd George, he began by declaring the impossibility of any British citizen of this generation feeling any but the most sympathetic sentiments towards France. This, however, did not prevent him from protesting in the most emphatic terms against a statement in M. Poincaré's Note that Britain, while demanding sacrifices from her Allies, was making no sacrifice herself, but claiming all that she would in any event be entitled to demand under the London Schedule of Payments. By an array of figures he demonstrated that it was France which was in reality demanding twice as much as the balance of claims in her favour would warrant, whereas Britain was asking for less than half the sum to which she would be entitled on an account similarly struck. Though M. Poincaré protested that France would not repudiate her debt to Great Britain, his proposal-delivered in the language of an ultimatum—was tantamount to repudiation. Sir Robert Horne went on to show how serious this step would be to England, owing to the depressed condition of trade. The acquisition of Alsace and Lorraine, he said, was making France a more formidable competitor to England than she had ever been before in the iron and steel trade, and her possession of those regions had so enriched her as to destroy any reason which otherwise might have been urged for Britain bearing part of the burden of her obligations. For his part, he concluded, he was of opinion that the British proposal to accept 710,000,000l. in full payment of reparations and Allied debts was too generous, and since it had been rejected he advocated that it should now be withdrawn.

When Mr. Baldwin went for his holiday to Aix-les-Bains in France, it was fondly hoped in some quarters that while in that country he would be able to exercise some influence on French policy and bring it more into harmony with British wishes and interests. So far was he, however, from achieving this that he gave M. Poincaré the strongest encouragement to persist in his policy. He passed through Paris on his return journey to England on September 19. He was effusively welcomed by the public and Press of that city, and allowed to see nothing but the evidence of the most friendly feeling towards England. He had interviews of the most cordial character with both the President and the Premier of the French Republic. The proceedings were kept strictly private, but a communiqué was issued with his sanction to the public stating that the two Premiers had found that there was no divergence between them

in purpose or principle in regard to the reparations question. Whether he had yielded to M. Poincaré or M. Poincaré to him was a question on which the public was allowed to form its own opinion.

As a matter of fact there could be no reasonable doubt, in view of M. Poincaré's character and proceedings, that if the agreement mentioned was real and not fictitious, it was Mr. Baldwin who had given way and not the French Premier. This was in fact the view taken by the French Press, which in consequence became for a few days effusively friendly towards England, and even went so far as to compare Mr. Baldwin's visit to that of King Edward VII. in 1903 which had laid the foundation of the Entente. The British Press, however-with the exception of those organs which in the reparations question simply acted as the mouthpiece of French opinion-adopted an attitude of undisguised scepticism, and refused to believe that the British Government had in any way departed from the standpoint taken up in the Note of August 11, in which the differences between England and France had been brought clearly into relief. It was confidently expected in well-informed quarters that Mr. Baldwin would take an early opportunity of putting the interview in what they thought to be its true perspective.

This expectation was not realised. On landing in England Mr. Baldwin refused to say anything more to the journalists who awaited him than that he had had a very bad crossing. His first public engagement was an address to the students of the Philip Stott Social College at Northampton on September 27. His subject was non-political, but he made a passing reference to his interview with M. Poincaré, claiming for it that it had helped to restore the atmosphere of confidence which had been lost-neither more nor less. This pronouncement left his critics more mystified than ever, but they were still able to cherish the hope that he was reserving himself for the opening of the Imperial Conference on October 1, an occasion which would indeed be eminently suitable for a full exposition of British policy.

Just about this time the German Government at last consented to the "surrender" which had so long been demanded by France and advised by England. The event seemed not to make the slightest difference in the relations of the three countries. The British Government continued in its usual course of waiting for France to make overtures, and France went on clamouring for more "surrender." The torpor of the Government was scathingly criticised by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald in a speech which he made at a dinner improvised on his behalf by the Independent Labour Party on the eve of his departure to the Near East for a holiday. He began by saying that he went away reluctantly, owing to the uncertainty of the outlook, but it was imperative for him to take a brief respite from work. After pointing out that the French success in the Ruhr was

important for evil and not for good, he turned to the part played by Britain in the affair. He was not sure, he said, whether he was appalled or merely amused at the attempts of the British Government to maintain what they called the honour and influence of Britain in Europe. The country's reputation was now such that no one paid attention to it. He could not understand a man who was full of patriotism and who boasted he was not a Little Englander allowing the country to sink into a position of no account among the nations. It was necessary to insist on Mr. Baldwin's telling them where he stood. If he had surrendered, if he had changed his mind, if what he said in the House of Commons on the last day of the Session did not still embody the policy of the Government, then he should call Parliament together without delay, and report what the country's policy really was. It was urgently necessary, added Mr. Macdonald, to raise again the whole question of reparations, and consider it de novo. England had to take England had to take upon itself its proper responsibilities in relation to the re-creation of Europe. They had been "elbowed out," but they must get back and declare for great moral principles in the spirit of pacifism.

Having made his speech Mr. Macdonald departed, and his suggestion that the Premier should be asked to call Parliament together was not followed up. There was in fact no indication that the Opposition parties, strongly as they criticised the Government, were any richer in constructive ideas. The outlook of the Liberal Party on the situation was expressed by Mr. Asquith in a speech delivered to a gathering of Liberals at the National Liberal Club on September 27. The occasion was the inauguration of the Liberal autumn campaign in the provinces, for which over a thousand speeches had been arranged. He opened his address with a tribute to the memory of Lord Morley, who had died a few days previously, placing him, as one who had brought literary gifts to the service of political Liberalism, in the line of Burke, Mackintosh, Macaulay, Trevelyan, and Gladstone. Turning to foreign affairs, he professed to see the one hope for the future in the League of Nations. He did not associate himself with the criticism which had been passed on the League for the way it had acted in regard to the Italo-Greek affair. But if the League was to continue to be respected and trusted, it could not afford to let the matter rest there. Two things of vital importance to the future of the world were at stake-the sanctity of an international covenant and the authority of the League of Nations; and they looked to the League in due time to assert both the one and the other. In regard to the Ruhr also Mr. Asquith pinned his faith to the League. He said that the British Government, after M. Poincaré's reply to Lord Curzon's despatch, had subsided into quiescence and seemed to have hiberPassive resistance had succumbed, but the mischief was done. The adventure in the Ruhr had been carried out at the cost no doubt of Germany, but still more at the cost of the

1923.]

Opening of Imperial Conference.

[105 Allies, and had made the prospect of obtaining reparations far more remote than it had been a year previously. Liberals, he said, were in favour of an impartial assessment by an international tribunal, and for this purpose he still preferred the League of Nations, though, if so desired, he would accept the Reparations Commission, reinforced by the advice of impartial experts.

The Imperial Conference opened, as had been arranged, on October 1. At the inaugural meeting there were present, besides other representatives, the Premiers of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), New Zealand (Mr. Massey), South Africa (General Smuts), Newfoundland (Mr. Warren), Viscount Peel on behalf of India, and Mr. Ormsby-Gore on behalf of the Crown Colonies. The Premier of Australia, Mr. Bruce, did not arrive in England till the end of the week. In welcoming the delegates Mr. Baldwin, as had been anticipated, gave a summary of political conditions throughout the world, dealing first with the Ruhr occupation and Britain's relations with France. Those, however, who expected that he would throw fresh light on the Paris communiqué were disappointed. He did not refer to it directly, and what little he said about his meeting with M. Poincaré tended to confirm the opinion of those who believed that he had gone back on the Note of August 11. One thing, he said, had been clear to them in Paris, and became daily clearer, that only by the closest co-operation and complete confidence of the Allies in each other could they hope for a settlement of Europe's difficulties. For the rest, he bade the Conference wait for the more detailed statement that would be made by the Foreign Secretary later in the week. Thus his threat of independent action so strikingly announced in the Note of August 11 seemed to have vanished into thin air.

The replies of the Premiers were for the most part formal, but General Smuts expressed his views on the European situation in a tone which contrasted markedly with that of Mr. Baldwin. Ignoring the attitude of France, he laid stress on the ability of the British Empire ("our Commonwealth " as he usually called it) to save the situation, provided it would "pull its weight," which, he hinted, it was not doing as yet. He pointed out that the Washington Conference had originated from the deliberations of the last Imperial Conference, and that the present Conference could be equally fruitful in contributions to a settlement of the world's troubles. He was anxious, he said, that whatever influence there was in the Empire, "the greatest machine on earth," should be used to the full in order to assist the settlement of Europe. They had no need, he said, to speak with bated breath. For centuries England had on every critical occasion in the history of Europe spoken with the voice of authority, and the other nations had always in the end had to listen to that voice. His feeling and his desire was that, on that unique occasion, they should, without using threats or violent language, and in a spirit of complete goodwill, once more do