II. WASHINGTON V. PHILADELPHIA

Ir is common ground that no Englishman should indulge in recrimination or seek to make party political capital out of the dangers to the edge of which the nation has drifted under the rare and refreshing foresight of public men who, in return for the slavish worship of the community, to say nothing of princely emoluments, devote their lives to assuring the security of the State. His Majesty's Opposition has ceased to exist. Its leading members are lost in admiration at the marvellous achievements of their right hon. friends over the way, even though here and there regret may conceivably be expressed that the Mandarins in possession have resolutely closed their ranks against the Mandarins out in the cold. But the Opposition realises, from perusing the columns of the Coalition Press, for example the Westminster Gazette, the Daily Chronicle, the Daily News, and other old familiar friends, that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds under the best of all possible Administrations. It would be absurd, if not criminal, to try and improve perfection. We are not only governed by a Cabinet of all the talents but likewise by one of all the virtues. The patriotism of the Party in power may be measured by the castigation repeatedly administered to Sir Edward Carson for his lack of patriotism by the sea-green incorruptible organ of a pure and immaculate Radical Plutocracy. A correspondent generally in sympathy with the National Review rebukes me for treating the semi-official mouthpiece of the Asquith Ministry as "Sir Moritz Mond's." He writes: "Sir Moritz is, I chance to know, only one of many shareholders in the Westminster Gazette, and I do not think he owns a tenth part of the shares, nor has he anything to say in its direction. So your stress on that point weakens your own case." I should be delighted to believe that Sir Moritz Mond has had no say in the performances of the Westminster Gazette during the last few years, but I do not feel altogether convinced, and have replied to my correspondent

as follows: "I am much obliged for your letter, and am grateful to those who take the trouble to correct misstatements of fact. It has never been suggested in the National Review that Sir Moritz Mond is the principal shareholder in the Westminster Gazette, but according to Who's Who (1914), he is Chairman of Westminster Gazette Syndicate Limited.' That he is not a mere sleeping partner without influence on the paper was shown by the announcement in the Press in the course of the year 1909 -I could find it at a pinch because it was reproduced in the National Review-that his duties in connection with the Westminster Gazette compelled him to leave Chester, for which he was then member, in order to seek a constituency nearer London. I feel therefore that until there is some authoritative disclaimer on the part of the shareholders of the Westminster Gazette, or the Editor of the Westminster Gazette, I am entitled to describe that paper as 'Sir Moritz Mond's organ.'"

It will be interesting to see whether the Westminster Gazette repudiates the Chairman of the Westminster Gazette Syndicate Limited or the Chairman of the Westminster Gazette Syndicate Limited repudiates the Westminster Gazette. The matter ought to be finally cleared up one way or the other. The public are entitled to know whose opinions they are reading. There is no mystery about the National Review. Why should there be a mystery about the Westminster Gazette? Meanwhile Sir Moritz Mond's organ has hoisted the Union Jack for the war, though it warns us not to "humiliate the German people " and is demonstrating its patriotism by admonishing Sir Edward Carson. Needless to say its devotion to an infallible Cabinet remains intact. It was equally enthusiastic over the appointment of Lord Haldane or Lord Kitchener as War Minister. It is ever ready with a glib explanation of each successive Ministerial blunder. While Prince Louis of Battenberg remained at the Admiralty the Westminster Gazette could not conceal its admiration for everything the Admiralty did. Nevertheless his sudden departure was pronounced to be inevitable, while the appointment of Lord Fisher reopened the floodgates of gush. "My Party right or wrong" is its motto.

The Daily Chronicle, as was noted last month, pursued different tactics. It made a pretence of observing the Party truce, but

got round the difficulty by reproducing an article from the United States emphasising the singular good fortune of the people of Great Britain in being governed at this juncture by "the Party of progress and efficiency " instead of by benighted Tories. This gem was culled from the North American of Philadelphia, which in an exordium to a recital of the miraculous administrative achievements of Messrs. Asquith and Co., including the appointment of Lord Kitchener, informed the people of Philadelphia, "The features in the British situation which seem to us noteworthy of significance are the commanding initiative, the steadiness of purpose, and the masterful efficiency displayed by the Government in meeting the greatest crisis that has confronted the Empire since Napoleon loaded his transports to cross the English Channel. . . . What makes them significant and of vital American interest is the fact that it is a Liberal Governmentthat the party in power is the party of progressivism, or Radicalism, as distinguished from the party of Conservatism or reaction." This was printed in Philadelphia and reprinted in the Daily Chronicle before "the Antwerp fiasco," when Mr. Churchill was evidently regarded as a demi-god across the Atlantic. I hazarded the observation last month that one need not travel far in the United States to find a different opinion about our marvellous Ministers, and sure enough comes a drastic douche of cold water from the Washington Post, which writes with at least the weight of the North American (see Washington correspondent of Morning Post, November 11). It is needlessly offensive, though it is useful in correcting erroneous ideas about American sentiment, and it may be as well to stop once and for all the unattractive practice of a slim Coalition under cover of a Party truce in importing blatant puffs from Philadelphia which probably originated in the National Liberal Club. According to the Washington Post, "With millions of brave men available for its Army and Navy, and with the existence of the British Empire at stake, the rulers of England have been feeble and halting and lacking initiative. The people of Great Britain must have gasped when the news came of the shelling of Yarmouth, the destruction of Admiral Cradock's squadron, and the issuance of the German squadron from its base under the very nose of the British blockading fleet.' The

Washington Post blames England for not having rewarded any of the men who have done the fighting-" while the Kaiser is spurring his men forward by quick recognition of merit, England is apathetic and indifferent ; adding, "The impairment of British prestige works sorely against the Allies and alienates the world's sympathies. If England will not help herself, how can she expect others to help her. The world does not dally with losers. Once on the down grade a nation quickly descends to defeat and ruin. Its past means nothing if it cannot or will not win in the present."

Doubtless the Washington Post is suffering from a fit of indigestion brought on by the vagaries of the British censorship, which under the auspices of a benign Press Bureau is understood to be the chief constructive work of the present Government. If anything can alienate the opinion of neutral countries and drive them into the hostile camp it will be the operations of this incredible institution. The Westminster Gazette and Daily Chronicle would be much better employed in introducing some order into this chaos than in seeking party capital where there is none to be found.

The Daily News more suo goes one better than Coalition contemporaries. Its Parliamentary correspondent (A. P. N., vide Daily News, November 6) dilates, on the eve of a new Session, on the stupendous performances of Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. McKenna and the rest of them: "Something should be said of the extraordinary life that the members of our Government are leading. They have been standing between this country and disaster no less than our gallant soldiers at the front, and when Parliament does meet it is to be hoped we shall hear some tributes paid, as well as listen to criticism which may be useful. It was a tired Cabinet when this country was plunged into the most appalling war in the world's history, but this Ministry of all the talents—in their case a fitting title-have risen to the height of their opportunities, and in the rude shock of their greatest difficulties have not been lacking."

Wisdom is not given to Coalitions, still less to Coalition journals. The predominant wish of the Ministry's intelligent supporters must be that the country should forget the very existence of the Cabinet and that their names-apart from Lord

VOL. LXIV

35

Kitchener's-should pass into permanent oblivion. Unfortunately, politicians move and live and have their being in limelight. They must talk or perish. It is idle for their henchmen on the Press to inform us that Ministers have stood between the country and disaster no less than our sailors at sea and our troops in the field. Ministers themselves tell us in so many words that they are responsible for any disasters that may befall us. On their own admission they received such a warning from the enemy only two years ago as no aggressive Power has ever given to another nation. After what occurred in 1912 in connection with Viscount Haldane of Cloan's visit to Berlin, Messrs. Asquith and Co. can only be regarded as self-convicted criminals in allowing this country to be taken unawares by Germany.

This is admittedly a strong statement. The reader shall judge for himself, or herself, whether it is an accurate or fair statement. My authorities are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in endeavouring to defend themselves, destroyed themselves and stamped and stigmatised their Government for all time. Much astonishment has been expressed in all quarters that Mr. Asquith, who passes for being a clever man, should have "given away the show" by his volunteered confession at Cardiff (October 2), from which neither he nor his colleagues can ever recover. Even their right hon. friends of the Opposition cannot save them, though we know from past experience that whenever they are in a really tight place in pursuance of that entente cordiale which usually makes a sham fight of our politics, though it is a somewhat one-sided sham fight-we fire blank cartridges while the Radicals respond with ball-an attempt may be made on the principle that one good turn deserves another, though so far the Unionist party has nothing to show for the many good turns it has done the Government. Our Parliamentarians had, however, better be warned betimes. Should they attempt to protect the Ministerial Mandarins against the consequences of their own confessions they will only damn themselves. The record of the Front Opposition Benches on the German question and National Defence is not so brilliant that they can afford to be quixotic. It would not be impossible or even difficult to frame a disagree