Page images
PDF
EPUB

motion which in studiously moderate terms expressed the regret of the House of Commons at the transactions of Ministers and at their want of frankness, it became clear that a direct negative accompanied by a defiant rejoinder on the part of the Ministers concerned would invite the risk of something like a wholesale defection on the part of Liberal members. What passed behind the scenes is not known, but on June 18, when Mr Cave introduced his motion in an admirably lucid and restrained speech, the Government and its supporters were united. But it was on the understanding that Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr Lloyd George should themselves frankly express their regret at what had occurred.

It was no easy task which was imposed upon the two Ministers. Their speeches, each thoroughly characteristic of the speaker, each strikingly effective in its way, were delivered to a deeply interested House. Both Ministers freely expressed their regret, and the Prime Minister on the following day declared that nobody had ever heard ‘a franker or more manly declaration.' But the regret, on closer scrutiny, proved to be only a regret that their actions had lent themselves to misconception in suspicious minds. In this sense, and in this sense alone, they admitted a lack of discretion. There was not a sentence, not a word even, which admitted the intrinsic impropriety of their transactions or suggested that, but for the trouble which arose from the fact that they became public, Ministers, or for that matter any other public servants, were not perfectly justified in entering upon such transactions. Had the expression of regret been clear and unqualified, the Unionists had not intended to continue the debate. But with such an evasion of the real issue they could not possibly drop their motion, still less accept the amendment which Mr Buckmaster moved from the Liberal benches to the effect that the House accepted the statements of Ministers and placed on record its reprobation of the false charges brought against them. Their view was stated by Mr Alfred Lyttelton in a speech whose moral earnestness and trenchant force make all the more poignant the sense of loss which our public life has since sustained.

Even on the Liberal side there were serious doubts as to the adequacy of the amendment. On the 19th Mr

Balfour, in a speech which displayed all his unrivalled mastery over the House of Commons, made a direct appeal to this latent dissatisfaction. Realising the tactical mistake committed by his own party in not embodying in their motion a specific disclaimer of any charge of corruption, he boldly suggested that he and his friends would willingly accept the amendment provided it was in addition to,, and not in substitution for, the original motion. From the way in which the appeal was received it was at once obvious that there could be no question of meeting it with a point-blank refusal. Ministers vanished from the front bench, and busy consultations went on behind the Chair, while for nearly two hours the ineffable Mr Falconer wearied the House with a defence of his doings on the Committee. Various alternative wordings were discussed. A suggestion to the effect that the House 'concurred in Ministers' expressions of regret' evoked an instant threat of resignation on the part of the Ministers concerned. In the end the Government decided on an amendment in which an acceptance of Ministers' 'expression of regret that such purchases were made and that they were not mentioned in the debate of October 11,' and an acquittal of acting otherwise than in good faith, were substituted for the simple acceptance of their statements contained in the Buckmaster amendment. This was moved by Sir Ryland Adkins, and served its purpose of uniting the Liberal party, only three members showing their dissatisfaction by voting for the original motion. But it failed in achieving the desirable end of a unanimous vote of the House of Commons. There was nothing in the mere form of the amendment to which Unionists need have taken exception, if only the expressions of regret by Ministers had been adequate and direct, and not qualified and evasive. But, as it was, the Unionists considered that some expression of regret by the House itself was essential. As this was rejected, they considered that they had no option but to proceed with the original motion. After a vigorous summing-up of the case against Ministers by Mr Bonar Law, and a speech by Sir Edward Grey which can only be described as damning in its faint exculpation, the motion was, of course, defeated.

[ocr errors][merged small]

the evident sense of genuine reprobation of what had occurred on the part of a large section of the Liberal party, before which even Ministers had to change their course. But the mood seems to have been transient. On July 1 Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr Lloyd George were banqueted at the National Liberal Club; and the latter let himself go in a speech in which he denounced his critics as hungry humbugs steeped in smugness and self-righteousness,' described himself as persecuted for endeavouring to 'lift the poor out of the mire and the needy out of the dung-hill,' as another Saint Sebastian, a martyr in a campaign of calumny, which his respect for the traditions of the House of Commons forbade him to answer, and concluded with a confident expression of hope that from the prostrate form of the hideous Marconi monster which his friends had slaughtered, there would come, like the honey from Samson's lion, something to sweeten the lives of millions. For sheer effrontery this performance formed a worthy pendant to the Falconer report, and more than justified the refusal of the Unionist Party to accept the expressions of regret made in the House of Commons as in any sense adequate. On July 2 the majority on the Committee, on learning that Mr Samuel had given up any intention of attempting to enforce the agreement with the Marconi Company, suddenly and without notice sprang a resolution on the Committee winding up its proceedings, and thus leaving unfulfilled the task originally assigned to it of reporting on the manner in which that agreement was negotiated and completed, as well as closing the door on all further investigation. The Marconi Committee died, as it had lived, a striking example of the unfitness of a Parliamentary Select Committee, in the existing state of the party system, to enquire into any subject in connexion with which party interests are affected.

*

Art. 14.-EASTERN PROBLEMS AND BRITISH IN

TERESTS.

CONFUSION is the keynote of the present international situation. Not only the future but the present is veiled by dense clouds. There is not a statesman in Europe who knows what the day may bring forth, or who can picture to himself how the differences which divide the Balkan Allies will ultimately be settled. Unable to compose their quarrels among themselves, they were unwilling to submit them to arbitration without first binding the umpire to become a partisan. Each side wished to impose its own cherished solution upon the tribunal. From the ensuing deadlock a conflict between Servia and Greece on the one hand and Bulgaria on the other seemed the only issue. It was long expected by most politicians and had been discounted on many Exchanges. But, although reason discerned the symptoms, diagnosed the evil and foresaw the outcome, political instinct rejected the conclusion as preposterous. For an armed collision, whatever its military issue, would further the political interests of none of the parties concerned, and must prove baleful to the belligerents and mischievous to neutral States. And on these and kindred grounds it was somewhat hastily regarded as intrinsically improbable. Roumania's unexpected announcement that she would not remain inactive if hostilities broke out, was construed as tending to bear out this view. For, as her neutrality could be secured only at the cost of a heavy preliminary sacrifice to one of the belligerents, this declaration would, it was assumed, act upon the peace-breaker as a deterrent. And it was Bulgaria who appeared most disposed to break the peace.

Now Roumania's intervention offers a characteristic illustration of the kind of unforeseen events which may at any moment transform the situation and modify the outlook. This alteration of tack may be a mere temporary deviation from a straight line of policy extending over thirty years, or an entirely fresh departure; in either case it implies a change of which even the nature and extent, to say nothing of the consequences, cannot yet be gauged. Roumania, it is surmised by many, has been moved by Russia to allow herself to be used as an

instrument for the prevention of war; Russia herself having first exhausted all the means of influencing Bulgaria which it was open to her to employ. And this conjecture, which is plausible, may be partially correct. It is certain that the Tsar's Ministers had played their last card a few hours before Roumania roused herself to take a momentous step in the same direction. M. Sazonoff had despatched a pressing message to Dr Daneff urging him in moving terms to come to St Petersburg and submit his country's case to the tribunal of the Emperor. And that was the Russian's Minister's last word. Before it could elicit an elusive reply, which would have offended the Tsardom and let loose the dogs of war in the Balkans, Prince Ghika, King Carol's Minister in Bucharest, disclosed to Dr Daneff the intention of his Government to mobilise so soon as the first overt act of war between Servia and Bulgaria became known.

But the theory of Roumania's suddenly conceived friendship for the Tsardom offers at most a partial explanation of a far-reaching act which has given a fresh turn to the political kaleidoscope. It assumes that

Roumania's part in European politics is that of an instrument at most, of an auxiliary. But to those who are personally acquainted with the statesmen of Bucharest, the pursuit of patriotic aims as the mainspring of their action appears to come much nearer the mark. King Carol's realm holds the highest rank among the lesser states of south-eastern Europe in territory, population, and revenue. It has a noteworthy part to play in the cultural evolution of the East, and is apparently qualified to play it. Its statesmen have given proof of solid qualities, and are capable of taking long views. Now Roumania considers that she has been unfairly dealt with by Bulgaria, and her most influential leaders bitterly resent the marked absence of common courtesy with which they allege they were treated by Bulgaria's present Premier, Dr Daneff. The wounds, thus inflicted, rankle; and now that fortune has put the Roumanian Government in a position of advantage, it intends to utilise the opportunity to the fullest extent, not in behalf of Russia or for the discomfiture of Austria-Hungary, but for the well-being of the Roumanian nation.

To Bulgaria and Roumania important parts were

« PreviousContinue »