upon Liberalism? What it really means is that the people in their very hearts know this is a futile way of advancing Liberal principles, and that as a matter of fact it is putting Liberal principles back. It is associating Liberalism with faction, with pettiness, and with personal questionsalways unworthy in politics, but now delinquent and criminal. When the nations are trembling on the verge of destruction or distraction no man has a right, and no group of men have a right to intrude their personality into a situation of that kind, and the nation realises it. These figures are worth analysing. Out of these elections the Independent Liberals had no candidate in seven seats, and they were Liberal seats. In the old days they were seats that would have been regarded as fairly safe Liberal seats, and yet they felt that the contest was so hopeless that they could not secure a candidate in seven of them. What does it mean? It means that the people realised that there is no division of principle involved. There is a division of principle between Liberalism and Unionism on the one hand, and Labour on the other. There is a clear division, and a division which affects the present situation. I do not say there is not a great difference of principle between Conservatism and Liberalism, but issues which divide us are issues which are not applicable to the present situation. With the Labour Party it is different. The Labour Party now claims a fundamentally different method of settling the world. The Independent Liberals do not claim it. Labour put forward a claim with regard to the whole fabric of society, property, capital, the organisation of industry, and Parliamentary government. It puts forward claims in reference to the settlement of the moment which challenged vital principles."-(Savoy Hotel, August 12th, 1920.)

No Difference of Principle.

"When you come to the difference between the Independent Liberals and ourselves on the living issues of the moment, where is the division of principle? I will go through them. Take economy: what is the difference of principle there? They may claim that they could do it more efficiently. (A Voice: Never.) That is a question of personality, and perhaps of method. Take Poland. You heard the debate the other day. In the careful statement made by Mr. Asquith he laid down no principle which I had not already laid down in the statement I made. With reference to his opinion with regard to the origin of the war, and his opinions with regard to the method of dealing with the situation, I cannot recall a single point of vital difference between his policy and mine. Take Mesopotamia. The only difference in Mesopotamia is that Mr. Asquith said he would abandon everything except Basra, and we are advised that that would not save us any expenditure at all. If he had said, Clear out altogether,' then that is raising a big issue; but as to whether you are to stick in Basra or to stick in Bagdad, there is no great question of principle involved."-(Savoy Hotel, August 12th, 1920.)

Ireland: Dominion Home Rule.

Take the issue of Ireland. Now, what is the difference there? As for the abandonment of that Bill, who is proposing it? We propose to go through with our measure of self-government, and to stand or fall by self-government for Ireland. But I am told the difference is between our Bill and Dominion Home Rule. Who proposes Home Rule? Asquith does not propose Dominion Home Rule. Dominion Home Rule involves control of the Army and the Navy being handed over to Ireland. Mr. Asquith does not propose that. Dominion Home Rule would involve

Mr.

handing over the control of the western ports exclusively to a Sinn Fein Parliament. Mr. Asquith does not propose that. At least, I asked him the other day whether he did, and he certainly did not answer either in the affirmative or the negative, but at any rate he has not proposed it. Dominion Home Rule, in the full sense of the term, would involve the whole of Ireland being under the complete control of a Parliament in Dublin. Mr. Asquith does not propose that. He is just as pledged as we are not to coerce Ulster, Now, what is the difference, there? It is not a difference between our Bill and Dominion Home Rule. It is a question of whether you are going to give a few more powers to the Parliaments which we propose to set up. That is not a question of principle. What I want to impress upon you is this. You are justified if there are great questions of principle in taking great and grave risks-even to divide a nation. You are not justified on questions of method. Those are things which could have been argued with greater force, and with greater practical effect if those gentlemen were inside and were co-operating; if they were in, and said to us You can cut down expenditure here or there.' If it were a great principle that you must not have an Army or you must not have a Navy, or you must get rid of Mesopotamia and all your acquisitions since the war-those are questions of principle and a very different matter. But if it is a question of cutting down in detail here and there, these are things where these gentlemen, if they have suggestions, could have far more practical influence in carrying out if they sat at the same table with us and told us what they suggested. The same thing applies to every criticism which I have heard on their part. There is no justification for these divisions."—(Savoy Hotel, August 12th, 1920.)

Why the Coalition was Continued.

"I have put this issue before: What alternatives were there? Government is a practical problem of every-day decision and action. What could we have done in 1918? We could have said to the Unionist Party : We cannot march with you any longer, We think the time has come for resuscitating party conflicts. We think it is essential for the nation, for its peace, for its security, for its health, that we should do. so, and therefore we quit, and leave you in possession.' That is one thing that could have been done. We would then all of us have gone into opposition. There would have been a renewal of party conflicts. Is that a course that is recommended? (A Voice: No.') Have you ever heard anyone recommend that amongst the Independent Liberals? Not one. Now, the second course was to say to the Unionists here in the Administration: We are very glad to have had your help so far. You have been extraordinarily useful to the country, and to us invaluable; but we think the time has come for us to part company, and to start the same old party fight.' They would say to us : Would you mind telling us what you propose doing? What is your plan? What is your policy?' We would say: 'Our policy is so-and-so and so-and-so.' They could say: We agree with it. We will co-operate with you. We will help you.' We say No; we would rather not have it, thank you.' Just think what that means; and we must think of this old country first. The Unionist Party has co-operated loyally, but what would have happened if you had said to them: Outside, gentlemen, we don't want you'? A natural resentment would have been created, an indignation, a feeling of being badly treated, of being insulted, a feeling that they had been treated as men to whom you could not entrust the

6

It

interests of the people and the interests of their own country, for which so many of them had made such great sacrifices during the war. would have been folly; it would have been a mistake of the worst character; and I say with confidence that if Mr. Asquith had been in my place he would have done exactly what I did. That is our justification." (Savoy Hotel, August 12th, 1920.)

The Coalition Record.

We have carried through an immense programme of progressive, advanced, democratic legislation. No Ministry that this country has ever seen has such a bound volume of democratic legislation to its credit as the one which you have helped to get through its task. I hope to see the Irish question settled on lines that will bring conciliation and good will between these races that Providence has put in such contiguity, with a view to their acting together. But we have to settle the world. Nothing will unravel this tangled skein but patience. There are crazy men everywhere; they are not all Bolsheviks, and they are not all in Russia; and the reasonable men must form a buffer State between these two extreme crazes to prevent their bringing the world to destruction. Let us resolve not to hand over the reins of the world to the crazy ones. That is why the Coalition stands for a central position. That is why they are attacked by violent men on this side and by violent men on that side. The violence is not all on one side. With your help we have been able to disregard both, and to pursue what I regard as a sane, consistent, moderate, sagacious policy, which I believe will bring peace, contentment, and prosperity to a suffering world. All we need is this: Let us keep a cool head and a stout heart."(Savoy Hotel, August 12th, 1920.)

THE IRISH SITUATION.

1. DEPUTATION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO MR. LLOYD CEORGE 2. A "MESSACE OF HOPE"

...

4. MR. LLOYD CEORCE ON THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS 5. "PEACE CONFERENCE" IN DUBLIN...

...

(1) A Parliamentary Deputation.

PAGE

472

473

474

...

474

475

A deputation of members of both Houses of Parliament waited on Mr. Lloyd George on July 29th to ask for strong measures against the anti-British conspiracy " in Ireland. It included the Duke of Northumberland and Sir Edward Carson, and was received in the Grand Committee Room off Westminster Hall. The complexion of the deputation was described by The Times as "overwhelmingly Unionist." This was obvious from the speeches of the two principal members. The DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, who opened the proceedings, declared that the situation in Ireland in its origin might have been a demand for national independence, but it had now become a phase of that international revolutionary movement whose aim was the destruction of the British Empire as the first and essential step in bringing about the universal dictatorship of the proletariat. The Duke incidentally stated that Sinn Fein was

financed and helped by the Bolshevists in different parts of the world. SIR EDWARD CARSON spoke in similar vein. It was not, he said, a question of Home Rule for Ireland or of any other rule, but one of " downing" the British Empire. He believed that the bulk of the Irish people were opposed to Sinn Fein.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S RESOLVE.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE, in his reply, said the Government did not need convincing that they should not tolerate an independent Republic in Ireland. Announcing that he was in complete agreement with much that had been said, he said there was no doubt that there was Bolshevik support behind the anti-British activities in Ireland, and he would not be surprised if there was Bolshevik money behind it. He assured the deputation that the Government would do everything that could be done to uphold the supremacy of Britain. He reminded his hearers that no laws could be successfully administered unless public opinion was behind them. The jury system had failed in Ireland, and new machinery had to be created. They proposed to strengthen the machinery, and for that purpose a very drastic Bill was to be brought in.* He was, he said, quite prepared to defend that Bill. Not only the machinery of the law in Ireland, but the agents of the law must be strengthened. Lloyd George proceeded :—

Mr.

"You must make it clear that anything which is fair, anything which is just, anything which is in accordance with the old British spirit of liberty we are prepared to concede; and make that quite clear to opinion not merely in America—for it is not American opinion I am thinking of— but to British opinion. You must have British opinion solid behind you..

We must so arrange our Irish statesmanship that whereas with one hand you make it absolutely clear that law must be enforced at whatever cost, you are also with the other hand tendering to Ireland measures which will commend themselves to the judgment of the vast majority of fair-minded people in Great Britain. That is our view. I do not believe you can govern Ireland under any other conditions. There are about five million trade unionists, and you have to see that enlightened opinion among the working classes of this country is behind you; otherwise you will find that your instrument will break in your hand and you will not be able to handle it. That is the policy of the Government.”—(Grand Committee Room, July 29th, 1920.)

(2) A "Message of Hope."

On August 3rd a largely attended meeting of leading commercial and professional men of Cork was held with a view to bringing pressure upon the Government to bring about a settlement of the Irish question by giving the country Dominion status within the Empire, with generous financial treatment. Next day a deputation from the meeting waited on Mr. Lloyd George, who welcomed the visit as a first message of hope." (See page 458.)

* The Restoration of Order in Ireland Bill was debated on August 6th, and passed in two days through the House of Commons.-(See page 475.)

(3) Unionist Plea for Action.

The Unionist Anti-Partition League held a meeting in Dublin on Agust 13th, and passed a resolution which said:

"We see Ireland now rapidly drifting to anarchy, and we therefore feel that our duty to our country and the Empire forces us to acquiesce in the only solution of existing troubles which appears to offer a prospect of lasting peace to Ireland. As the Government of Ireland Bill now before Parliament is unacceptable to any party in Ireland, we are of opinion that an immediate effort should be made to settle the question by provisions which, while preserving Ireland within the Empire and safeguarding the security of Great Britain, will give effect to the desire of the majority of the Irish people for self-government with an adequate control of all local affairs, including taxation. We urge his Majesty's Government that every month of delay in adopting this course renders the situation more dangerous and the chance of agreement more remote."

(4) Mr. Lloyd George on Settlement Proposals.

During the few days immediately preceding the adjournment of Parliament on August 16th, it was persistently announced that on the adjournment Mr. Lloyd George would announce an important change of policy on the part of the Government. All that happened, however, was that in a reply to an inquiry by one of his own supporters in the House of Commons, MR. LLOYD GEORGE repeated that, subject to three clear and definite conditions, they were prepared as a Government to discuss with any body who could claim to represent Irish opinion any proposals which they put forward, and which, in their judgment, would satisfy Irish opinion. He said:

"These conditions are: First of all, that the six counties which represent the North-East of Ulster must be accorded separate treatment. The second is that under no conditions will we assent to any proposal which will involve, directly or indirectly, the secession of Ireland or any part of Ireland from the United Kingdom. The third is—though hardly in a different category I put it separately in order to make it clear-we could not agree to anything that would involve any detraction from the security of these islands and their safety in days of war. That is so important a matter that, although it might be said to be included in the second condition which I have laid down, I think it is essential that we should dwell upon it as something which is distinct and apart. Subject to those three conditions, which have been laid down from time to time, we should certainly be prepared to consider any proposals brought forward by any responsible persons who claimed to have behind them Irish public opinion. We have had no response to that invitation, clear and definite, from an authoritative quarter. (House of Commons, August 16th, 1920.)

Replying to an inquiry by Mr. Bottomley whether the third condition did not rule out Sinn Fein, MR. LLOYD GEORGE said:

"I should hope not. That is a matter for themselves. If they accept it, well and good. I should be very sorry if any condition would rule out the majority of the Irish people." (House of Commons, August 16th, 1920.)