19Z0 
 
 UCSOL 
 
 ^i£" 
 
 
 . ■ .*"'■" 
 
 -u 
 
 i < 
 
 
 
 r-, 
 
 
 ' 
 
 , 
 
 J3 
 
 ; 
 
 
 . :^ 
 
 ^= = — ■ 
 
 Jf/-^^ 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 XI 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 r-1 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 ID 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 §^ 
 
 u? 
 
 #i
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 liaSHSIElSMSHIIHHmaHliltilsllJIdtSIilKMIingHEIHIsIHMSSSiaiilQIKIEI^ 
 
 E] EI 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 E _ _ _ _ _ 
 
 M 
 
 PARTY 
 
 NOT 
 
 FACTION 
 
 H H 
 
 H 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 EI I H %. V I H 
 
 H 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 "-■■'■■-'■■^■■■■'■■■■■^■■^■■■"■■■■■^ H 
 
 H 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 7"/ie Necessity for National | 
 Government. | 
 
 ■ 
 m 
 m 
 
 H 
 
 T/ze NeeJ for Coalition. 
 
 BY 
 
 B 
 
 P^ 
 
 POLITICUS. 
 
 1 g 
 
 I /'nV^ SIXPENCE Net. a 
 
 H H 
 
 i PuWrsW af 25-27, OU Queen Street, S.W.]. | 
 
 E g
 
 PARTY 
 
 NOT FACTION. 
 
 The Necessity for National 
 Govemment. 
 
 The Need for Coalition. 
 
 BY 
 
 POLITIGUS. 
 
 Published at 25-27, Old Queen Street, 8.W. 1. 
 
 ^
 
 
 I'iZO 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 P^ Introduction 
 
 5^ I. — Party in the War 
 
 , II.— The General Election 
 
 Qi III. — The Achievement of the Coalition 
 *" IV. — Some Criticisms Considered 
 
 V. — All Government a Species of Coalition 
 VI. — Party Composites 
 
 ^/II. — Summary and Conclusion 
 
 C3 
 
 ^Index 
 
 page 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 7 
 
 14 
 23 
 30 
 35 
 43 
 49 
 
 19595) 
 
 38G7'8i: 
 
 A 2
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 The object of this pamphlet is to show that it is our 
 duty to support the Coahtion Government, not only as good 
 Britons but also as good party men, Liberal, Conservative, 
 or for that matter, Labour. 
 
 The writer begins by explaining the origins and motives 
 of Coalition in the war. He denies that there is a hard and 
 fast hne to be drawn between the politics that make for 
 success in war and in peace. — (Chapter i.) 
 
 He proceeds to indicate the hidden dangers that threatened 
 the country at the Armistice and to show that in holding 
 an early General Election and in continuing the Coalition 
 Mr. Lloyd George followed the only course consistent with 
 honour and national safety. The pohcy of the Coalition is 
 discussed and it is shown that Mr. Lloyd George was morp 
 faithful to Liberal principles than their official representatives. 
 — (Chapter 2.) 
 
 In the next Chapter the writer passes in review the achieve- 
 ments of the Coalition both at home and abroad and reaches 
 the conclusion that the work of the past two years has been 
 greater and more beneficent than that of any Government in 
 our history. — (Chapter 3.) 
 
 The writer then deals with certain general charges that have 
 been brought against the Government, and shows that no 
 t party Government could have accomplished the task or 
 have given us peace at home or abroad. — (Chapter 4.) 
 
 He proceeds to vindicate the principle of coaHtion in 
 politics. He shows that no Government but a Coalition, 
 no Coahtion but this Coalition, is possible. He discusses 
 other varieties of Coalition and incidentally criticises the 
 constitution and policy of the Labour party. Finally, he 
 demonstrates that all Government is a form of Coalition and 
 that the real alternatives are between coahtion that is secret 
 and camouflaged and coalition that is open and honest like 
 the present. — (Chapter 5.) 
 
 In the next chapter he makes a rapid sketch of party 
 history showing how much of the great work in our history 
 has been done by Coalition and how both the older parties 
 are composite in their character. Disraeli is shown to be 
 the Tory-Radical, Gladstone the Liberal Tory. A some- 
 what new view is presented of the place of Radicahsm 
 ahke in the Conservative and in the Liberal party, and 
 there are judgments passed on Chatham and Pitt, Chamberlain 
 and the present Prime Minister, whom he regards as 
 representatives of the Radical spirit that is the bond of 
 connection between the Liberal and Conservative parties. — 
 (Chapter 6.) *> 
 
 A final section summarises the whole argument. — 
 (Chapter 7.)
 
 PARTY, NOT FACTION. 
 
 ' INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Comradeship of Party. 
 
 Coalition is often charged with disloyalty to party and to- 
 party principles, and the charge is a grave one, especially in 
 this country, where so much value is rightly attached to the 
 discipline and comradeship of party. In no country is the joy 
 of the fight so keen as in this, or invested with so many and 
 such estimable moral virtues, and nowhere else are its obliga- 
 tions considered so binding. It is nature's corrective of the 
 individualism of the race, which otherwise might seed to 
 anarchy, that this should be so, and that' in all our contests, 
 whether of field games or politics, the side is rightly held to 
 count for so much and the individual, comparatively, for so 
 little. And a great part of our educational system is designed 
 to encourage this same spirit of unselfishness and loyalty. 
 
 Coalition the guide not the enemy of party loyalty. 
 
 But it is not true that coalition undermines the 
 obligations of party and of what party stands for. If it 
 were so, and a combination formed for the general good could 
 be proved to be inimical to party, then so much the worse 
 for party which by that argument would be setting up its 
 own interest against that of the State. But in fact the most 
 important motive of coalition is that it is a more effective 
 instrument of policy than any one party has at its 
 command. And not of national policy only but of party 
 policy too. Even party principles may have a better chance 
 in the keeping of a coalition than in the splendid isolation of 
 one party. True, a coalition supersedes a great deal of party 
 controversy but only as the husk is rejected in order to get 
 at the kernel. 
 
 Our countrymen w\\i with difficulty give up the conception 
 of politics as the noblest of all contests, nor, if only we purge 
 it of its follies, is there any reason why they should. When 
 pure and ardent souls complain of party warfare, it is not 
 because they want to get rid of parties, or could do so if they
 
 would, but because they want new parties ; not that they 
 dislike conflict, but because they want the conflict ration- 
 alised ; not tliat they are indifferent to party as an instrument 
 of good, but because they want its issues to be remodelled and 
 brought into closer relation to reality- Alike fo youthful 
 ardour about to apply itself to politics and to party veterans 
 anxious to re-temper their steel, coalition has its message 
 of encouragement. To the one it offers a freer choice of 
 ideas and method? and a simpler litany of service to the 
 country ; to the others a new edge to their principles and 
 more effectual methods of advancing them. 
 
 The need of Revising Party Issues. 
 
 For there is no final revelation in politics, and one good 
 principle in public affairs, like one good custom in morals, 
 may corrupt the State, Without periodical revision of 
 their issues, party politics lose aU their dignity and 
 degenerate into faction. Hume observes of the British that 
 in their European wars they were such ardent fighters that 
 they commonly forgot wiiat they were fighting for, and went 
 on flirting after the original subjects of quarrel had long been 
 decided. It is true also of our domestic wars. Sometimes 
 the fighting is for fighting's sake, a mere biting of thumbs by 
 one half of the nation at the other half. Sometimes the party 
 principles round which the combat is engaged are so divorced 
 from the realities of public life that the very word " prin- 
 ciple '* falls into contempt — a mere danger signal that 
 some egregious nonsense is approaching. Sometimes party 
 controversy is only the blowing up of dying embers by idle 
 men to keep their old bones wami, sometimes it is a merely 
 concerted sulking without any discoverable subject of real 
 quarreL This is the sort of party warfare that coalition 
 seeks to end. But of part}'' in the sense of Burke's definition 
 of it, as a bodj^ of men seeking by their joint endeavours to 
 sen'e.vthe national interest upon some particular principle on 
 which the3v'' are all agreed, coalition is not the destroyer but 
 the fulfilment- 
 
 The Theme of this Pamphlet. 
 
 The object, then, of these pages is to show that Coalition 
 satisfies Burke's definition of party, that it is the indis- 
 pensable instrument of national v/elfare, and that it 
 comes nearer to wiiat the majority of Liberals and Con- 
 servatives and perhaps the majority of" Labour men want 
 than aiiything tiiey can find within their seveiai it^ilies. 
 
 (9595) "
 
 4 
 I. 
 
 PARTY IN THE WAR. 
 
 Why the First Coalition was formed. 
 
 For several years before the war party controversy had 
 been running high, but the outbreak of hostilities imme- 
 diately stilled it. A few there were who still clung to our 
 old isolation from European conflicts, but they remained 
 silent when the war had begun and their views, it is to be 
 noted, were not distinctively Liberal or Conservative, but 
 were a survival from the old principle of non-intervention, 
 which in the eighteenth century was Tory, was after the end 
 of the Great War adopted by the more advanced wing 
 of the Liberal party and was from time to time acted 
 on quite impartially by both Liberals and Conservatives, 
 From beginning to end of the war there was not a single issue 
 of the old party controversies that gave any trouble. Was 
 it because they were dead or dying ? 
 
 The first Coalition was formed not because the old 
 subjects of quarrel were emerging,'but because it was thought 
 that a combination of parties would give more drive to 
 the conduct of the war. It was all done in the cause of 
 efficiency and national unity, and Mr. Asquith, then Prime 
 Minister, not only consented to the Coalition, but professed 
 eagerness for its formation. " It was on my advice," he 
 said at Glasgow just before the Armistice, " that, a little 
 more than three years ago, a Coalition Government was 
 formed. I think it was good advice." The occasion of the 
 formation of the First Coalition was the discovery that the 
 war was likely to last a long time, and would be a war fought 
 not only by soldiers but by the workmen of the country. 
 It was Mr. Lloyd George who first grasped the principle 
 which, though obvious enough now, was novel to our 
 countrymen then, that in such a war there were no 
 civilians but only two kinds of belligerents, industrial 
 and military. It was little more than an incident in this 
 portentous discovery that the British High Command, still 
 absurdly sanguine of the early termination of the war, chose 
 to throw on an insufficient supply of high explosive shells 
 the blame for the failure of our premature attempts to break 
 through the German lines of 19 15. The first Coalition arose 
 out of the perception of the truth that in such a war there 
 could be no spectators but all must be workers, just as the 
 present Coalition rests on the conviction that peace after 
 such a cataclysm demands united effort like the war, and 
 that the problems of peace, though different in kind, are as 
 difficult and as dangerous as those of war.
 
 Conscription and^the Paris Resolutions. 
 The formation of this first CoaUtion had two sequels. 
 If all were belligerents, it followed that whether they were 
 employed in the military army or in the industrial army was 
 a question not of principle but of convenience and efficiency. 
 Sir John Simon, who made conscription a question of statistics, 
 had no place in a war Government and very properly left 
 it. The other sequel was the economic resolutions of the Paris 
 Conference from which it appeared that even business could 
 not, any more than human beings in the trenches in France 
 or in. the factories at home, survey the war from an opera 
 box. Mr. Runciman, an ardent Free-trader, recognised that 
 quite clearly ; indeed not to have done so would have been 
 to place Cobdenism on a pinnacle higher than victory and 
 security after the war and to love economic theory more 
 than flesh and blood. 
 
 Unity and Efficiency the Motives of the Second 
 Coalition. 
 
 When towards the end of 1916 the Second Coalition 
 Government was formed it was again for no reasons of 
 party but for the more efficient prosecution of the war. 
 New issues were emerging which made it desirable that 
 more rapid and clearer-cut decisions should be taken 
 than was possible in a large Cabinet meeting, where the 
 variety and diversity of views made for delay and ineffectual 
 compromise. All of them were comprised in the single 
 conception of unity — not mere agglutination of parties 
 but organic unity in which all local and sectional differences 
 were fused — unity in the decisions of the Cabinet, unity 
 on the western front between the &-itish and the French 
 armies, unity between the claims of the East and West. 
 It was the ideal of the Coalition internationalised and so 
 to speak raised to the square and the cube. It was odd 
 that Mr. Asquith who approved coahtion of domestic parties 
 should have looked so coldly on the same policy applied to 
 the military problems of the war, and even have seemed to 
 encourage particularism in our strategical direction and the 
 competitive rivalry of the different theatres of war. , As 
 though the vested interests and unrestrained competi- 
 tion which Liberalism condemned in the civil order were 
 not even more dangerous in the ghastly community 
 of war ! Except that Mr. Lloyd George carried out more 
 remorselessly that resistance to sectional usurpation which 
 Liberalism had so often preaclied, and that his Liberalism 
 was more thoroughgoing, there were no political differences 
 between him and Mr. Asquith. Differences of temperament 
 
 (9595) b2
 
 and methods there were. Mr. Asquith conceived his office 
 as that of chairman and arbitrator between opposing sections. 
 Mr. Lloyd George on the other hand knew that a hybrid 
 compromise is commonly barren, and sought unity by the 
 mastery of a single idea. If there were further differences, 
 they arose out of the fact that Mr. Lloyd George had less 
 faith in the old bureaucracy and attached gi'eater importance 
 to new men and new methods — in other words, that he had 
 the admixture of Radicalism in his political composition 
 which Mr. Asquith lacked. 
 
 Peace in War aind War in Peace. 
 
 It is not irrelevant to the purpose to remind ourselves 
 of these war- difficulties, for it is part of the case for the Coali- 
 tion that there is no hard and fast line to be drawn between 
 the politics that make for success in war and in peace. Wai" 
 itself as we have learned in the. last five j^ears, is won as much 
 by civilian virtues as by those that are commonly regarded 
 as purely military ; and, conversely, peace too is a war 
 upon evil and, though its metliods and incidents fortxmately 
 differ, it has a sti"ategy of its own, and makes the same demand 
 for union in the face of the enemy between these who have 
 a common desire to serve. Why should we concede as the 
 monopoly of war the qualities of energy, directness and of 
 loyalty between all good citizens that will make for 
 victory in that war against domestic evil which is peace 
 politics? Why deny to love of one's o^nni people what 
 we yield so freely to hate of a foreign enemy ? 
 
 Coalition principles won the War. 
 
 Undoubtedl}^ the principles of Coalition, directing the 
 energy of the Allied armies and navies, won the war. Tliere 
 could have been no victory in the land war but for the unity 
 of front and (for this was a corollary) the unity of commandL 
 There could have been no victory at sea over the submarine 
 campaign but for the rationing system and the Ministries of 
 Food and Shipping. Nor, seeing that no nation ever lost 
 a war but by believing it to be lost, would our endurance 
 have lasted so long if the union of parties had not organised 
 our faith in victory and prevented any doubts in the justice 
 of our cause. * For throughout 1917, the critical year of the 
 Second Coalition, the Germans were active in their attempts 
 to snatch a favourable peace b)^ dividing the Allies or by 
 insinuating pohtical and moral doubts ; and against this 
 danger the Coalition was the only sure fortification.
 
 Who did and who did not follow the British example. 
 
 It was in this countrj^ thanks to Mr. Lloyd George, that 
 coaHtion was most complete and that its logical implications 
 were most clearly understood. All parties were asked to 
 join the Coalition and except the Irish Nationalists all were 
 represented in the Government. Many other countries 
 followed the British example — Canada, Australia, New 
 Zealand, France, Italy and later even countries like Denmark 
 and Sweden which, though neutral, were near the track of the 
 storm. But other countries did not and their example was a 
 warning. One of them was the United States, with results 
 that will be seen presently. Another, and a terrible example, 
 was Russia which not only did not form a coalition of 
 parties, but of set purpose and in furtherance of a political 
 theory established a tyranny of one section of the people 
 over the rest. In consequence she suffered both defeat 
 and disgrace and prolonged the miseries and ruin of war by 
 two years. Yet another example was Germany herself. 
 Germany was in process of military defeat when she sued for 
 an armistice, but her defeat was far from complete, and, if 
 war were merely a trial of physical strength she might doubt- 
 less have kept up the struggle for some months longer. But 
 defeat is moral long before it is physical, and what was 
 wrong with Germany and forced her leaders to anticipate 
 by negotiation her complete physical breakdovv'n was that 
 her people had lost all hope of victor}^, all belief in their 
 cause, and all confidence in their masters. There is a sense, 
 if not his sense in which Ludendorff was right in maintaining 
 that the causes of the German breakdown were political 
 and moral. Had the German constitution admitted a 
 coalition Government the breakdown might have been post- 
 poned, and perhaps the first indication of the internal maladies 
 that ensured her defeat was given in the corrupt mis- 
 management of her rationing system which sowed the seeds 
 of disloyalty between classes and of revolution later, 
 
 II. 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION. 
 
 The hidden dangers of National Union. 
 
 Meanwhile underneath the Coalition there was a great 
 deal of subterranean activity. It was the work of minorities, 
 but no one could be sure how powerful they were or would 
 become when peace released the taboo under which they lay. 
 In the Labour Party there was a minority, strong in 
 ability if not in numbers, which did not believe either in 
 the possibility or in the policy of military victor^' and 
 favoured a peace of accommodation. There was further a
 
 rudimentary party in the country which hoped for revolution 
 on Russian principles. There were Liberals in whose simple 
 eyes Mr. Lloyd George had committed an unforgiveable sin 
 by allying him.self with Conservatives even for the higher 
 cause of the countr}^ and there were other Liberals who, 
 while in general sympathy with Coalition, wished to bring the 
 Prime Minister back to the Party as a lieutenant or, 
 failing that, to exclude him from the goodwill of the 
 Liberal name. No one could gauge the strength of these 
 currents of feeling or guess to what strange extremes the 
 rebound from the strain of war might not carry the 
 country. The Armistice brought no relaxation of 
 anxiety, but merely changed its geography. 
 
 Why the Asquithians came to grief at the 
 General Election. 
 
 Most of the critics were willing to concede that Coalition 
 was necessary during the war and had justified itself in the 
 result. But the price of this grudging certificate of good 
 service was that it should now expire and be no more heard of 
 for good or ill. On this view the sins of the Coalition began 
 with the Armistice. With the cessation of hostilities the 
 excuse for its existence disappeared and the primary duty of 
 politicians was to "get back to normal conditions," which 
 apparently ' meant ringing out the new world and ringing in 
 the old. That at any rate seems to have been the view taken 
 by the Asquithian group after the General Election. But 
 just before the Armistice Mr. Asquith had used these 
 words : Negotiations and the arrangements for peace 
 will raise a crop of the most delicate and difficult questions. 
 In my judgment it is all important — as important as it has 
 been at any stage in the prosecution of the war — that we 
 should continue, until it is all over, to preserve an unbroken 
 national front." What had happened between these words 
 and the definite breaking of the national front by the re- 
 appearance of the Asquithian group as a Party of opposi- 
 tion ? The General Election. On Mr. Lloyd George was 
 laid the responsibility for the debacle of the Asquithians in 
 that election. But why on Mr. Lloyd George } 
 
 There had been differences of opinion between the Prime 
 Minister and the Asquithian group on the conduct of the war, 
 but none of the old Party issues which the war had sent to sleep 
 had yet awakened. There was apparently nothing at issue 
 except the fact that one group was called Liberal and the 
 other Coalitionist. But while no one was asked to cease to 
 be a Liberal (or a Conservative) as a condition of member- 
 ship of the Coalition Party, membership of the Asquithian
 
 group was confined to those who abjured the name of 
 Coalitionist. The plain cause of the official Liberal disaster 
 was that whUe the country wanted union and identified 
 the Coalition Party with that union, the Asquithians went 
 into the election believing that neither did the country want 
 union nor if it did that it identified the Coalition with union. 
 It was one of the greatest tactical blunders ever made in 
 politics. It was also bitterly unjust both to Mr. Lloyd George 
 and to the Liberal cause. He had proved the vigour and 
 sincerity of his political faith, and if he was also working 
 with Concervatives in a cause which all parties had equally 
 at heart that was no reason why Liberals should decline 
 to help but the best of reasons why they should stand by his 
 side. Official Conservatives did with perhaps less to gain 
 than the official Liberals had ; and there was nothing apparent 
 to prevent the Asquithians from doing the same. Many did 
 not. Wliat was the reason ? A genuine conscientious disbelief 
 in union ? Or the exclusiveness of a priesthood, who 
 interpreted their great faith as bigots interpret their Koran, 
 taking all the blessings to themselves and flinging all the 
 curses to their neighbours ? 
 
 Objections to Delaying the General Election. 
 
 It is interesting to examine the alternatives that were 
 before the Prime Minister after the Armistice. He might, 
 in the first place, as M. Clemenceau did in France, have 
 concluded the Peace before consulting the electorate, 
 and on grounds of mere party and personal convenience there 
 was much to be said for that course. It would have had 
 ob\4ous advantages to wait until political issues shaped 
 themselves more clearly and the main tendencies of the 
 people's peace mind were apparent. But to this course 
 there were grave public objections. " We have a House 
 of Commons," said Mr. Asquith in September, 1918, " in 
 whose arteries and veins the old blood is drying up and the 
 new blood is not free to flow. It is through no fault of its 
 own a growingly impotent body in which even criticism 
 is severely restrained and there is no place for constructive 
 power." Was Mr. Lloyd George, at a time of grave 
 domestic difficulty, with the defacement of war visible on 
 every buttress of the State and a new political alchemy at 
 work in men's minds to leave the country without a policy 
 and without a Parliament that could speak for it ? That 
 would have been treason to representative government 
 and might have discredited it for ever. But supposing he had 
 adopted this plan and had deferred the election until the 
 peace had been concluded, was the Treat}^ to be submitted to 
 the old Parliament, made more decrepit by another bed-ridden
 
 10 
 
 year, or to the new ? In the first alternative, what was its 
 approval of the Treaty worth ? And in the second, would 
 it not have been a direct encouragement to the Germans to 
 dispute the authority of the Supreme Council in the hope 
 that the break up of the party union would give them their 
 opportunity ? That was what happened in the United States. 
 
 The case of America. 
 
 True, there was no Coalition in the United States, for 
 Mr. Wilson went to Paris after having declined to accept the 
 suggestion that he should take with him some representative 
 of the Republican party from the Senate, and it may be said 
 that Mr. George, being the hea.6 oi a Coalition party, need 
 not have feared that the Treaty would be the subject of a 
 party controversy. Perhaps not, if tliKS Coalition had endured. 
 But surely the sole motive of those who wished to postpone the 
 election until after the Peace was that the hope that the 
 Coalition would not endure and that the election would be 
 fought on the old party lines. In that case, there was (from 
 the national point of view) a risk ; (from the partisan point of 
 view, a hope) that what happened in the United States would 
 happen here, and that what the unity of the Coalition had 
 done the triumph of party faction would undo, leaving to our 
 Allies the responsibility for executing a Treaty which we 
 had helped to draft, and even to impose upon them against 
 their wishes. 
 
 " These things are not done." 
 
 So little concealment was made of the hope that the 
 Coalition would break up if the election were delayed that 
 Mr. Lloj^d George has even been blamed for not himself 
 demolishing the house he had built. The idea apparently 
 was that, with or without an immediate General Election, he 
 should have broken up the Coalition into its component parts, 
 and said " Good-bye " to those who had worked with him to 
 \yin the war. Mr. Lloyd George in his Manchester speech 
 in December, 19 19, had a memorable passage on that strange 
 suggestion : — 
 
 " Would he (Rlr. Asquith) have gone to his Unionist coUeagiies 
 and said to them ' You have he'pf d me to win the war. You have 
 served the country faithfully. Now, I need you no longer, and 
 therefore I would asli you to go. The time has come for resuming 
 party war. You have done well. You have served England well 
 and truly. Give it up. I want it' for Liberals.' " 
 
 And, having said that to Unionist colleagues, was Mr. Lloyd 
 George then to go to his Asquithian friends, and say to 
 them,
 
 II 
 
 " Forgive mc, I have strayed outside the inner circles 
 of your venerable temple to fight the enemy and I have made 
 friends even with the outer barbarians. With their help I 
 have defeated the enem}', saved my country, and incidentally 
 saved your temple. I am no more worthy to be one of j^ou. 
 Now make me as one of the servants of your Urim and 
 Thummim. I bring my repentance, and in token of it I 
 have thrown down the High Places where I worshipped the 
 false gods of National Unit}^ and Political Reason. Let me 
 lay at your feet the trophies of my labours in partibus 
 infideUnm." 
 
 What they might have done. 
 
 These things are not done. But, on the other hand, 
 would it not have been easy for Asquithians to go to Mr. 
 Lloyd George and say " You have not only served your 
 country but in doing so you have also saved our Liberal 
 faith, here and all over the world, from strangulation. Your 
 methods were not ours, but they have succeeded. If we 
 can help 3'ou in the difficult times that lie ahead to make the 
 world safe for freedom, and thereby serve both our country 
 and our party, we will." They did not. The Conservatives, 
 ^^dser in their generation, did. V/as the cynic who observed 
 that the worst of high principles was that their possession 
 made it unneeessary to act upon them thinking of the 
 Asquithians ? Faith without works is dead. 
 
 Clearly the alternatives of postponing the election until 
 the Coalition had broken up, or of breaking up the Coalition 
 immediately and then holding a general election were un- 
 thinkable. Mr. Lloyd George followed the only course con- 
 sistent with honour, with logic, or with the interests of the 
 country. He had the general election as soon as it was 
 possible to design the foundations of a Peace Coalition, 
 and by doing so was able to go to the Peace Conference 
 as the representative not merely of a Government but of 
 the people's will. If Asquithians suffered, it was by 
 their mismanagement, not by the Prime Minister's fault. 
 Mr. Lloyd George saw to it that Liberal principles did 
 not suffer. 
 
 The Coalition Manifesto of November, 1918. 
 
 It was otie of the drawbacks of an immediate appeal to 
 the countPy' that the policy of the Third Coalition could 
 only be laid down in outline. Yet it was neither vague nor 
 indefinite, and it is worth while examining the joint manifesto 
 which Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law issued on Novem- 
 ber 22nd on behalf of the Coalition. This manifesto embodied 
 
 (9595) c
 
 12 
 
 the heads of agreement set out in a letter written by Mr. Lloyd 
 George to Mr. Bonar Law on November 2nd, and first made 
 public at a meeting of the Unionist Party on November 12th. 
 It began by declaring that the unity of the nation which had 
 won the war must not be relaxed in peace if the problems 
 that the war had bequeathed were to be handled with the 
 courage and promptitude demanded by the times. The 
 Asquithians never seemed to grasp the fact that this was not 
 amiable commonplace, but was meant in deadly earnest. 
 They thought that if they subscribed in a general way to 
 the principle of unity that was as much as ought to be asked of 
 them. They had done as much during the war, but it had not 
 prevented them from aiding, so far as they were able, the 
 particularism of command which nearly lost us the war, and 
 from resisting that conception of the war as one single front 
 which won it. But unity which was only a loose tacking 
 together of elements that would catch on any snag, and tear 
 asunder was, however magnificent the names it might give 
 itself, mere selfish opportunism, and Mr. Lloj^d George had no 
 use for it. The unity that the times demanded must be 
 organic and there must be some guarantee of permanence, 
 at any rate until the back of the task had been broken. Other- 
 wise it would be a patent sham. That some Liberals to whom 
 unity was not a passionate ideal but a verbal toy should still 
 have thought that they had claims upon Mr. Lloyd George and 
 tried to offset purely personal and party considerations against 
 a lofty conception of national duty, shows what deep inroads 
 the spirit of faction had made in the political life of the nation, 
 and how flimsy and frivolous the stufi of purely party politics 
 was in danger of becoming. 
 
 The programme of the third Coalition may be exhibited 
 under some five heads. The first was demobilisation and 
 the care of returning soldiers and sailors. This was 
 acknowledged as a "primary obligation of patriotism," and 
 special industrial training and land settlement were promised 
 for returning soldiers and sailors. 
 
 The second head was the making of peace and the pro- 
 visions of guarantees for its permanence. Chief amongst 
 these guarantees was the reduction of armaments and the 
 formation of a league of Nations " which may serve not only 
 to ensure society against the calamitous results of militarism 
 but to further a peaceful mutual understanding between the 
 associated peoples." 
 
 Then, thirdly, having by these means secured the founda- 
 tions of liberty at home, the new Government declared its 
 belief in self-government for Ireland and for India.
 
 " The Cabinet has already defined in unmistakable language 
 the goal of British policy in India to be the development of 
 responsible government by gradual stages. To the general 
 terms of that Declaration we adhere and propose to give 
 effect." 
 
 Of Ireland the manifesto wrote that until is problem was 
 settled there could be no political peace either in the United 
 Kingdom or in the Empire. Two paths were barred, separa- 
 tion from the Empire and the forcible submission of the six 
 counties to a Home Rule Parliament, but all other paths to 
 self-goveriunent were to be explored. 
 
 Fourthly, domestic, social and political reforms 
 were promised. The constitution of the House of Lords 
 was to be changed so as to make it more truly repre- 
 sentative and to give it direct contact with the people, and 
 all existing inequalities of the law as between men and 
 women were to be removed. The amelioration of their 
 lot was promised to those who lived by manual toil — more 
 and better houses, larger opportunities of education, 
 improved conditions of employment, and application 
 of the experience of the war to the. regulation of the liquoi 
 traf&c. 
 
 Lastly, under the fifth head came a number of items of 
 reform, all designed to increase the wealth and prosperity 
 of the country and to redeem the losses of the war. In- 
 creased production must necessarily be the basis of all 
 schemes for the improvement of the condition of the people 
 and with this object Government control of industry 
 was to be removed at the earliest possible moment, and 
 waste was to be redeemed by economical production of 
 power and light by organisation of the railways and by a 
 number of other economical investments. Agriculture 
 v»as to be developed. The fiscal policy of the country was 
 to remain unchanged subject to the application of the lessons 
 of the war to key industries, to the prevention of dumping 
 and to the grant of a preference to the colonies on existing 
 duties and on duties subsequentl}^ imposed. At the same 
 time there was to be no fresh taxation of food or raw 
 materials and therefore no preference on these articles. 
 
 Such in outline was the policy of the new Coalition. Two 
 observations are to be made upon it. The fi st is that it 
 does not profess to do more than state the principles on 
 
 (9595) .02
 
 14 
 
 which the new Government proposed to act. It was im- 
 possible to do more immediately after the Armistice than in- 
 dicate principles and briefly how they might work out. The 
 execution must depend on circumstances and to criticise the 
 Government because it was unable to see in detail how they 
 would work out is to apply a standard never applied to any 
 Government in the past. Secondly, the programme was not 
 an eclectic compromise between the two party plat- 
 forms, but a new programme. Fiscal policy, it is true, 
 was avowedly a compromise, for Mr. Lloj^d George remained 
 a Free Trader and Mr. Bonar Law a Protectionist t^ but it 
 was a compromise that ceded the victory to neither of the 
 two opposing views, and did not profess to be more than 
 provisional until such time as the country had got back to 
 its normal state. For the rest, not only the bottles but 
 the vintage itself was new. 
 
 Ill 
 
 THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE COALITION. 
 
 The mere catalogue of the Government's work since the 
 General Election might easily run to a length that would 
 unduly delay the argument of these pages. It is sufficient 
 for the purpose to show that the Coalition has been loyal 
 to the policy of the Manifesto, that, tested by the volume 
 of work, it has been the most efficient instrument of 
 Government ever known in this country, and that 
 throughout Mr. Lloyd George has not only done nothing 
 that the most earnest Liberal should not have done, 
 but far more than he or any other Liberal could have 
 done except as head of the Coalition. 
 
 The Coalition ahead of its Schedule. 
 
 It is less than two years since the Third Coalition Govern- 
 ment came into power, and the programme of work given 
 out in the Manifesto was intended to cover the normal life 
 of a iParliament. Already with an expectation of life of 
 three years the Third Coalition has attacked all the problems 
 indicated in the Manifesto except the Reform of the House 
 of Lords and its liquor legislation. It is well ahead of its 
 schedule, and if the plan of work mapped out in the Manifesto 
 is not completed within the life of the present Coalition it 
 will not be through the default of the Government, but 
 because the principles of the Coalition have shown such 
 fertility and its methods have so impressed the country by
 
 15 
 
 their efficiency that the work will necessarily have to be con- 
 tinued to prevent a grave set-back in the evolution of our 
 politics. 
 
 Half a World in Ruins. 
 
 It is characteristic of heroes that they do not know 
 how great their deeds are, and are never conscious of the 
 spacious romance of their days. The British heroes who 
 fought in the war underrated alike the magnitude of their 
 sei-vices to their country and the immensity of the destruction 
 they dealt amongst their enemies. They literally pulled 
 down half the world, and yet when flatterers told them that 
 the world would be as before', only better, after a night's 
 rest, they believed them — a modesty which, however becoming 
 to the individual hero, was very unjust to the statesmen who 
 had the building up of the ruins for their task. And what 
 ruins ! Of all the charges made against the Supreme Council 
 and the British representatives upon it that of dilatoriness is 
 surely the most unreasonable. Austria, ->the decadent 
 descendant of Old Rome through the Holy Roman Empire, 
 was broken into fragments, Turkey the destroyer of the 
 Roman Empire of Constantinople had at last paid the 
 penalty of her crimes and her treachery, Germany who 
 had aimed at the overlordship of the world, was, if not 
 prostrate, on her knees, and broken in spirit if not in 
 resources. So terrible was the penalty of challenging the 
 might of Britain and affronting the conscience of liberty ! 
 
 1815 AND 1919. 
 
 As though that v/ere not enough, Russia seemed about to 
 break up into her component parts and to perish under 
 anarchic tyranny. In the state of Europe and Asia in the 
 year following the Armistice you could see the strata of a 
 thousand years of history jostled and jumbled as though by a 
 gigantic earthquake. By comparison, the havoc wrought by 
 the Napoleonic Wars was local and superficial. Napoleon 
 abdicated on April 4th, 18 14, the Treaty of Paris was signed 
 in May, the Congress of Vienna began to sit in September, 
 its labours were interrupted by the escape of Napoleon and 
 the Hundred Days, and the Second Treaty of Paris was 
 signed on November 29th, 1815, eighteen months from 
 the abdication. Yet the work of peace-making then com- 
 pared with what had to be done in this war was in territorial 
 magnitude alone as a province to a continent.'^ Then there 
 were four stable monarchies against one unstable ; now the
 
 Hi 
 
 pioportions weasc almost revei-sed. Then it was sufficient 
 for the purpose in hand to satisfy a few plenipotentiaries 
 with no one to please but themselves, now there were a bundle 
 of principles — often contradictory — to be enforced and 
 reconciled with each other. It was the difference between the 
 summary processes of a family council and the elaborate 
 complications of a court of justice. Then we had no thought 
 of constructing a new world ; now nothing less would satisfy 
 the conscience of mankind. And yet sorae are found to com- 
 plain that the modern work took as long or nearly as long 
 as the jobbing repairs done in 1815. There are worse vices 
 than impatience, but none quite so unreasonable. 
 
 The peace of ihe world has not yet been established nor 
 will it be for another two years. But the wonder is not 
 that anything should remain to be done but that so much 
 should have been done in the time. Less than two years 
 ago the German Emperor still thought of himself as Caesar, 
 Kaiser and Czar. Now there is no Kaiser and the peril of 
 Csesarism has vanished too. Germany is no longer an 
 Empire including Frenchmen, Poles and Danes within its 
 government, but a commonwealth of none but Germans. 
 Her SLvmy is little more than a Constabulary and disarmament 
 beyond this limit. is in rapid progress. Reparation for the 
 ravages of war is not merely promised but is now being 
 arranged in its details. A new state of Poland was 
 called into being as a buffer between Germany and the great 
 enigma of Russia, and as satisfaction of a great national 
 ideal, long starved in oppression and chicane. 
 
 In Austria two new states have been created in Bohemia 
 and Southern Slavia. Turkey (except for a nominal sovereignty 
 at Constantinople) has been restricted to her highlands of 
 Anatolia, and the void thus created has been filled by 
 the emergence of a Greater Greece, by the revival of the 
 Arab nationality, and by the formation in Palestine of 
 the nucleus of a future Jewish state. In addition the 
 framework of a new international policy and a future 
 confederation of Europe has been made in the League of 
 Nations. Any one of a score of items in the Peace Treaties 
 has enough political stuff in it to stretch over a decade of the 
 old politics. Verily, we are better men than our forbears, and 
 our little finger is stronger than their biceps. 
 
 British Statesmanship at Paris. 
 
 It is an error to regard these results as the wild fruits of 
 the battle-field. True, without the victories of the army and 
 navy none of these things could have been done ; but, equally
 
 17 
 
 by themselves the batons of field-marshals put forth no 
 blossoms. If the peace terms represent victory not only 
 over the GeiTnans, but also over the vices of the old 
 iatemational pohtics, this second victory vvas the v/ork of 
 statesmanship alone, and achieved in circumstances of quite 
 extraordinary difficulty. Not osiy did Russia, whose govern- 
 ment was an inverted Kaiserisra and in its conteiapt for law 
 was waging war on the principles of the League Covenant, 
 threaten to become an open enemy at any moment, but the 
 United States, torn bj^ party strife, found herself unable to 
 take any share in carrying the pohcy that she had strongly 
 urged. Not only was it by no means certain that Germany 
 would accept the terms of the Peace, but before these doubts 
 had been resolved our military power had been reduced by 
 demobilisation to such an extent that other factors than 
 military force were relied upon ia our diplomacy. 
 
 Fraj^ce was sceptical of the value of the League Covenant, 
 and on many disputed points of policy was less hberally 
 incHned than we were. That the demobilisation went 
 on rapidly in spite of all doubts about the attitude of 
 Germany, thereby saving enormous sums of money and 
 the risk of popular discontent, that the Treaty emibodied 
 the distinctively British conceptions of a reign of law in 
 international affairs, and of limiting arcnaments and 
 substituting voluntary service for conscription, that it 
 preserved intact our alliance with France and that no 
 shot had to be fired in the west after the conclusion of 
 the Armistice — these results were achieved by diplomacy 
 rather than by the show of physical strength. The truth 
 is, after the process of demobilisation our diplomatic 
 operations had to be conducted on credit — credit for 
 which the coalition of parties was our chief security. 
 
 The Case of Russia. 
 
 There were flaws in the diplomatic triumph, it is true, and 
 the worst was Russia. Few people will deny now that much 
 trouble would have been saved if Mr. Lloyd George's first 
 proposals for a Conference at Prinkipo had been accepted, or 
 if the opportunity that offered later, after the defeat of 
 Denikin, had been taken. 
 
 Mr. Lloj^d George well knew the risks on the side of Russia, 
 and nothing happened later that was not foreseen by him as 
 a possible and even probaHe development. It is a popular 
 fallacy that when an ideal course is not taken, the obstacle 
 is i^orance or badness. The melancholy fact is that our
 
 iS 
 
 ideals are not a disciplined army that marches to order. As often 
 as not, they fight with each other, and it was so in this 
 Russian business. The ideal of making peace with Russia 
 on these occasions could not be brusqued without risk of 
 grave injury to that cordial co-operation with France which 
 was the keystone of the arch.- We had to adopt a course 
 that was not most to our liking lest far worse danger befell. 
 Nor was Russia the cnly instance. 
 
 Why the Turkish Settlement was Delayed. 
 
 Many of our difficulties in the East were due to the delay 
 in drafting and enforcing the settlement ; and the critics 
 have denounced the perils of delay, forgetting that Mr. 
 Lloyd Georges whole career has been a living denunciation 
 of them. No one knew better than he that international 
 affairs do not arrange themselves in a queue and wait patiently 
 for their turn. Yet some questions have to be taken first and 
 some have to wait. In keeping Turkey to the end Mr. Lloyd 
 George was certainly not acting from selfish motives, for he 
 knew that this country, as the greatest Eastern power, would 
 in any case be the chief sufferer by delay. He took the 
 risk in the hope, which seemed reasonable, that the United 
 States would associate herself in the care of the new liberty 
 in the East. His hopes were disappointed by the out- 
 break of faction which Ameiica would have avoided had Mr. 
 Wilson taken the precaution of substituting a Coalition 
 Government for a Party Government. 
 
 The Immense Pace of Coalition Reform. 
 
 We pass from the achievement of the British Coalition 
 at Paris to our colonial and domestic polic}^ There never 
 have been two years in our history in which the volume of 
 legislation has been so great or so alive with new and far- 
 reaching principles. The international settlement tele- 
 scoped into less than two years a settlement which after 
 the end of the Napoleonic Wars stretched its length over 
 half a century from the Congress of Vienna to the estab- 
 lishment of the kingdom of Italy. Similarly in our 
 domestic affairs a mass of new laws, each of which 
 under the old party system would have been big enough 
 to take a whole session and then perhaps have 
 reached the Statute Book so mauled and maimed as 
 to be almost unrecognisable, was passed smoothly 
 and rapidly into law. It would be, if not just, at any 
 rate intelligible criticism, that too much was attempted 
 at once and that the Government would have consulted 
 its own interests (though not that of the country) if it
 
 19 
 
 had been slower and more cautious, and insisted on these 
 questions standing in a queue and taking their turn. The 
 Government took the risk of the unpopularity to which 
 rapid legislation usually exposes its promoters because it 
 realised how vast were the stores of political explosives that 
 had been accumulating during the war and how terrible were 
 the risks. It was mine and countermine. You could hear 
 the click, click of mischief burrowing underground, and 
 there was no time for the old formal and leisurely methods. 
 
 The Greatness of our Indian Reform. 
 
 The Government of India Bill, which enfranchised 
 nearly a million Indians and gave their elected represen- 
 tatives control over some of the most important functions of 
 Government, was by far the biggest measure ever attempted 
 in India. It was the child of the war and of the loyalty that 
 India showed. " Let us have it out," said Mr. Montagu, the 
 Secretary of State for India, " once and for all. What was 
 to be the principle of our Government in India ? Was it to 
 be domination, subordination, the iron hand ? Were we to 
 have one principle of government in India and another prin- 
 ciple in the rest of our Empire ? That sort of theory was 
 utterly impossible and out of harmony with British ideas." 
 When one contrasts the boldness of this statement with the 
 timidity of Lord Morley when he introduced his reforms 
 only a few years before, one realises how deeply the war had 
 dyed our politics. A retrograde Tory who had moved with 
 the age from 1914 would by 1920 be far more advanced than a 
 Liberal who had stood still. It is an old maxim that de- 
 mocracy cannot govern an Empire,, but we were bent on dis- 
 proving it. " It is against the nature of things," wrote 
 Montesquieu, "that a democratic state should conquer those 
 who cannot enter into the sphere of its democracy. The 
 conquered people must be able, must be empowered, to 
 enjoy the privileges of sovereignty." 
 
 A New Commonwealth in the Making. 
 
 The principle of the India Bill was of wider and more general 
 application than India, and was in reality the beginning 
 of a wide and beneficent revolution. Our first colonial 
 Empire the Tories lost, not by withholding free institutions 
 (the American Colonies in that respect had a remarkable 
 degree of domestic liberty) but bj^ taxing them against their 
 will for the support of a policy which they had no voice in 
 shaping. Our second Colonial Empire was nearly lost, not 
 because we sought to tax it, but because under the grand- 
 niotherly rule of Downing Street it taxed us, and became a
 
 A, NO -^^ 
 
 
 k " as Disraeli once called it. It 
 v^S> saved hv^^/i^^^^fi. of responsible government on the 
 theorv-3Jiie^J&fuy>^^<Btified in the late war — that free in- 
 carried the responsibility for their local 
 as the colon it-5 grew stronger they would 
 tak(j a share in supporting the policy of the 
 Empire as a whole. And now the India Bill marks a further 
 stage in the evolution of our Imperial Commonwealth. 
 Hitherto the theory that liberty brought strength and loyalty 
 had been applied only to men of our own or at any rate 
 European blood. Now it v/as to be applied to the portions 
 of the Empire which had hitherto been part of the Imperial 
 as distinguished from the Colonial system. The Bill was 
 designed to " help India along the path of nationality " 
 and to make a " bridge between Government by the Agents of 
 Parliament and Government by the Representatives of 
 India." In other words, we were transforming India and 
 our Empire proper into a second Commonwealth in the 
 sure hope that freedom would bring loyalty and progress 
 and to us relief from the burdens of atlas. The covenant of 
 the League of Nations by its doctrine of the mandate was 
 applying the same principle to the territories of the Middle 
 East where the Turkish sovereignty had been escheated. 
 By far the greatest achievement for a nation, as for 
 nature, is motherhood and birth. India is to be no longer 
 a possession but a member of the family ; later Egypt 
 will folio w with Arabia and Palestine. Again we note 
 the phenomenon of processes which in the old party 
 days were spread over a century of strife peacefully 
 accomplished in a couple of years in the forcing-house of 
 coalition. 
 
 The Government's Irish Policy. 
 
 The Irish policy of the Government is based on the grant 
 of self-government subject only to the conditions that 
 there should be no separation and no coercion of Ulster. 
 The Bill as introduced gave self-government to Ireland and 
 avoided coercion of Ulster by setting up not one but two Home 
 Rule Parliaments, and so far from den3dng the chances of 
 Irish unity it insisted that only Irishmen could achieve it. 
 The unitarian Home Rule of Gladstone was only possible by the 
 coercion of Ulster ; the modified Home Rule with county 
 option of Mr. Asquith denied the unity of Ireland. This Bill 
 was designed to secure union without coercion. It does 
 not lie with a party that for twenty-four years has been 
 working for Home Rule and produced nothing but failure and 
 discord to reproach the Coalition with its failure to solve the 
 Irish question in a single Session. The real obstacle to
 
 ai 
 
 success is not in the terms of the Bill but in the outbreak of 
 revolutionary lawlessness in Ireland. It may be, if peace 
 can thereby be restored, that the powers to be given 
 maj^ be made more extensive. In the meantime, bad as the 
 condition of Ireland is, the prospects of settlement are on 
 the whole better than they were. Previous Bills have 
 either denied the possibility of Irish union or have proposed 
 to secure it by civil war. What would not the Liberals of 
 the 1902-5 Parliament have given Ulster for the conversion 
 of Conservatives to the principle of Home Rule and 
 the assurance that their Bill would pass through the 
 Lords ? Of all the wonders wrought by the Coalition, 
 none is so notable as this conversion of the Conservatives to 
 the principle of Home Rule. Had there been a Coalition 
 in 1886 before Gladstone brought in the first Home Rule 
 Bill, the Irish probiem could have been settled out of 
 hand. It was a comparatively simple probiem vv^lien it 
 was first taken into the machinery of British politics, 
 and that the trouble should have been aggra^ ated by 
 repeated failures is the most damning proof of the in- 
 efficiency of the old Party system. Think of it ! All that 
 splendid rhetoric, those endless debates, a Party broken 
 up by internecine quarrels and old friendships severed, 
 thirty-four mortal years of it and nothing to shovi^ for it 
 all at the end ! And yet that is the system which some 
 hold up for our admiration now. 
 
 The Old Army and the New. 
 
 The first care of the Coalition Government at home was 
 to demobilise the army as rapidly as might be, to assist 
 the absorption of ex-soldiers into civil life, and for those who 
 by reason of their disablements or for other reason* could 
 not be readily absorbed, to provide lands, industrial training, 
 and employment. Particularly successful was the provision 
 of employment for disabled soldiers by the Royal appeal 
 to employers and the institution of the National Roll. It was 
 the first time that any Government had undertaken the 
 responsibility for finding employment for disabled ex-soldiers 
 and the public spirit shown by employers (the plan was first 
 suggested by a Manchester employer) showed that the benefi- 
 cent results of union \yent beyond the domain of politics and 
 had made a keener sense of responsibility in social life. Again, 
 the demobilisation of the aim/ was a tremendous adminis- 
 trative task in itself and, as ai.eady noted, it was not a little 
 dangerous in the unsettled condition of the world. Mr. 
 Churchill had entirelj- to re-make the British Army from 
 nothing. A weak Government would have delayed de- 
 mobilisation, an unbalanced and extreme Party Govern-
 
 22 
 
 ment might have attempted to re-introduce conscriptift*. 
 in some form or another. The Coalition Government had 
 the courage to do the right, if the risky thing, and the 
 result justified its courage. No other country voluntarily 
 abolished conscription. And yet there were many found 
 perverse enough to accuse the Government of militarism. 
 
 The Government's Constructive Policy at Home. 
 
 War sobers some men and intoxicates others ; and the 
 example of Russia showed that when the discipline and strain 
 of war are suddenly relaxed, men's minds are particularly 
 susceptible to the attacks of political disease. Britain had 
 suffered less than some other combatants, but, on the other 
 hand, conscription for foreign service had been so entirely 
 new in her history that no one knew what effect the experi- 
 ence might have on her people. It might draw classes closer 
 together ; on the other hand, you cannot loosen one tradi- 
 tional convention without endangering others, and who 
 knew that the violence of war might not have weakened 
 respect for authority, the political balance, and the affection 
 for precedent characteristic of our politics ? And how would 
 the upheaval of economic structure react on politics ? Two 
 developments of political vice presented themselves as more 
 likel}'- than others. The revolution of opinion might take the 
 Russian form and establish a tyranny of the proletariat, 
 resting on violence. Or it might, in the name of justice, 
 demand the socialisation of industry under some variant 
 of syndicalism. The Government aimed at establishing a 
 bloc of the old Liberal and Conserv^ative parties wath such co- 
 operation as they could get from Labour to resist either of 
 these developments. But its policy was not purely negative. 
 
 It recognised that the fall in the value of money made the 
 lot of the M^orking classes difficult ; that if the countrj^ was to 
 reduce the mortgage of war it must increase -its production, 
 and make its methods more efficient ; and that, unless the 
 direct action of the strike for political -ends was to supersede 
 parliamentary methods, parliament must be made more 
 representative and its despatch of business improved. 
 
 To one or other of these principles is referable most ol 
 the domestic legislation of the Go\'ernment- — the Housing 
 Act, necessary for the comfort and physical well-being of the 
 workers as well as for the mobility of their labour ; the 
 Transport Act, to improve the management of the rail- 
 ways, and to grease the wheels of commercial and social
 
 23 
 
 progress ; the Education Act, because political vice springs 
 from ignorance and economic progress was only possible by 
 increasing mastery of mind over matter, which wise learning 
 gives ; and half a dozen similar measures. 
 
 In Labour, as in international disputes, the Government's 
 policy was directed to the removal of specific grievances (so 
 far as that could be effected by State action) to the 
 development of Whitley Commissions and of machinery for 
 prompt dealing with difficulties between employers and 
 employed, and to more adequate provision against un- 
 emplo5'Tnent. It was with equal steadiness directed against 
 the panacea of nationalisation of which the Labour Party 
 was deeph^ enamoured, and against the theory that there was 
 some special \'irtue in the. State not derived from the indivi- 
 duals that compose it. 
 
 It should be remembered that this policy of social reform 
 was built up on the Representation ol the People Act 
 passed by the Second Coalition, which enfranchised 13 
 million electors including 7 million women. The first 
 Reform Act enfranchised 500,000 men, Mr. Disraeli's Act 
 I million, and Mr. Gladstone another 2 millions. Each of 
 these Acts produced what was regarded at the time as a 
 miniature revolution of an extraordinary likeness of party 
 controversy. This far greater Act of 1918 the Coalition was 
 able to take in its stride, and few realised that anything 
 remarkable was being accomplished. So great is the gain in 
 efficiency and despatch that a Coalition can give, so great its 
 economy of political passion and disputation. 
 
 All these reforms the country owes to the Coalition ; 
 without a Coalition most of them would have remained 
 for years to come windy aspirations. 
 
 IV. 
 
 SOME CRITICISMS CONSIDERED. 
 
 " War-methods " — An Unjust Sneer. 
 
 The magnitude of the Coalition's achievements makes a 
 brief summary such as has just been given read Hke a cata- 
 logue, and it may help us to understand its spirit witliout 
 overburdening ourselves mth detail if wc consider some of 
 the criticisms that are made. Most critics concede that the 
 Coalition did invaluable work during the war sucli as could
 
 24 
 
 have been done by no party. Their criticism dates from 
 the Armistice or the corxlusion of the peace with Germany. 
 They urge that the methods efficacious in war are bad in 
 })cace-time, that Liberalism and Conservatism represent when 
 all is said fundamental divergencies of human nature which 
 it is mere evasion to ignore, that a Liberal Conservative or 
 even a Labour Government could now do better work and 
 that Coalition is mere opportunism without guiding principle. 
 There is no hard and fast distinction between war and 
 peace or between the methods appropriate to either. Eiisy 
 is the descent into the hell of war ; but to climb the slope to 
 peace, hoc opus hie labor est — that is indeed collar work. 
 One is sometimes tempted to think that if the war methods 
 of Coalition had governed our policy in the five or six years 
 before the war, perhaps the war would never have come and 
 it would certainly have been shorter when it did come. And 
 similarly, it may be a gain, indeed has already been, when 
 these war methods overlap into the time of nominal peace. 
 It is an old tag that no one can become wicked all of a sudden ; 
 neither does a world that has been through such a fever as 
 this war immediately become convalescent by the signing of 
 a certificate that the bad drains which caused its illness have 
 now been put right — for the signing of a Peace Treaty amounts 
 to no more than that. Besides, if by war methods is meant 
 the combination of all good citizens for the common good, 
 a truce to faction, and an attempt by either party to ally 
 itself with the good that it sees in the other, then war has 
 something to teach peace. 
 
 As for the complaint that Coahtion pohcy is neither Liberal 
 nor Conservative nor Labour, that is true. As the Attorney- 
 General well said at Leicester, " It is not the right test for a 
 Liberal at the end of a particular period to sit down and say 
 I will apply a measure, I will apply a footrule, or I will apply 
 a pair of scales, and I will try to ascertain what exactly of 
 a purely Liberal character I have contrived to extract from 
 this period. It would be no more right than it would be for 
 his colleague to sit down with a measure or a footrule or a 
 pair of scales and say, " What exactly from the Tory point 
 of view have I succeeded in extracting from this period. 
 That attitude is not Coalition ; it is the negation of Coalition." 
 His true test as a Coalitionist is. What good have we done to 
 the State ? As a Liberal and a Conservative his test must 
 be mainly negative. He may not ask, What has my party 
 got out of it ? He may ask. Has anything been done which 
 is not consistent mth the principles of my party ? It is a 
 subject of just congratulation by the Coalition that while 
 it has done nothing that either Liberals or Conservatives
 
 25 
 
 could claim as a party triumph, equally, it has done nothing 
 of which either party could complain that it is a violation of its 
 principles and compromises its possible future as an indepen- 
 dent party. Both parties have contributed to the common 
 stock. I'o the Liberal end the Coalition owes many of the 
 governing ideas of policy and the sensitive regard for 
 rights characteristic of Liberals, while the Conservative 
 end has stressed the idea of duty as between classes, of 
 order and of discipline, each party discharging its tradi- 
 tional role and indulging the qualities of its temperament. 
 
 Let us try to imagine what would probably have 
 happened if the Coalition had broken up before the 
 General Election and one or other of the poUtical parties 
 had been returned — per impossible — with a majority suffi- 
 ciently large to form a Government from among its own 
 supporters. In this way we may form an idea of the dis- 
 tinguishing quality of the work that the Coalition has done. 
 
 What might have happened under a Conservative 
 Government. 
 
 If the Government so returned had been Conservative, 
 it would have had greater difficulty than Mr. Lloyd George 
 in holding the balance even between Mr. Wilson and M. 
 Clemenceau. There might have been a serious breach with 
 Mr. Wilson, who as an idealogue is temperamentally anti- 
 pathetic to the English Conservative mind, which always 
 reasons from the particular instance to the general, never in 
 the reverse order, and the result might have been grave 
 injury to Anglo-American relations. 
 
 It is doubtful, too, whether Conservative delegates would 
 have consented so readily to a Covenant of the League ; and 
 the tendency would have been to throw this country more 
 and more into the hands of France, whose views woidd have 
 tended to dominate the Conference and its policy. Its terms 
 with Germany might have been in some respects more severe ; 
 on the other hand, there would probably have been no pro- 
 hibition of conscription and the disarmament clauses would 
 have been framed, less to assert a principle than with the more 
 limited object of rendering Germany powerless. We should 
 not have demobilised so rapidly, and might well have decided, 
 in view of the dangers of the international situation to retain 
 conscription longer in some form or another. 
 
 Party controversy at nome would by this time have 
 been raging furiously. The Liberals and labour Party
 
 26 
 
 disagreed on domestic policy, would have united in denuncia- 
 tion of the Conservative foreign policy. Labour disputes would 
 have taken a graver form and the Government would not 
 have had the same authority to deal decisively with them and 
 the pressure of its own extremists would have made it more 
 difficult to yield to demands which were expedient and 
 possibly just. If it had survived, the policy of the Govern- 
 ment would have tended to reaction like that which 
 followed the end of the Napoleonic wars. More probably, 
 however, the Government would have been swept out of power 
 before peace with Germany had been concluded and with the 
 added complication of a war with Russia on our hands. 
 
 If a Liberal Government had been in Power? 
 
 Or, secondly, take the supposition that a purely Liberal 
 Government had been returned to power and had the conduct 
 of negotiations. It would almost certainly have fallen under 
 the control of Mr. Wilson, for between his ideas and con- 
 ventional Liberal sentiment there is a natural affinity. The 
 result would have been a sensible cooling of our friendship 
 with France. This process would have been assisted by a 
 sentimental view of our relations with Germany. True, 
 Castlereagh who was the best friend of the beaten side at the 
 Vienna Conference, was a Tory, but with Germany only half 
 beaten in the military sense the least sign of weakness and of 
 disunion Avith France would have been taken advantage of. 
 There might have been a Poland but it is doubtful whether 
 Czecho-Slovakia and Yugo-Slavia would have obtained their 
 complete liberty from Austria, if Mr. Asquith's criticisms 
 of the Austrian Treaty are any indication, and though 
 our Russian policy might have avoided the risk of war its 
 complaisance would have been a temptation to the militarists 
 in Russia to attack frontier states to whose creation the 
 British representatives subscribed pro forma only. Probably, 
 a Liberal Government representing us at Paris would not 
 have risked the great experiment of founding a Jewish 
 national home in Palestine and their Turkish settlement 
 might have avoided both the dangers and the hopes of a 
 mandate in Mesopotamia. 
 
 But the chief disabilities would have been in domestic 
 politics. A Liberal Government cannot get measures through 
 the House of Lords and the pace of legislation would have 
 been retarded. For many years orthodox Liberalism has been 
 barren of ideas and has depended for their supply mainly on 
 its Radical wing or from time to time on Labour thought.
 
 27 
 
 Left to itself, it' is critical not creative ; it is a state of mind 
 which forms judgments usually charitable and broadminded 
 on the doings of others but rarely prompts to decisive action 
 on its own account. And these defects have been particularly 
 noticeable since Liberalism finished its characteristic work of 
 political emancipation or rather left it to others to finish, for 
 the Representation of the People Act passed by the Coalition 
 was imcomparably the largest and most generous measure 
 of enfranchisement in our history. A Liberal Government 
 therefore (unless indeed it had been able to command the 
 services of Mr. Lloyd George and his associates) would neither 
 have originated plans fast enough nor if it had would it have 
 been able to pass them into law. With the Conservative 
 party in sullen hostility it would have been forced either to 
 ally itself with Labour or if it could not do that to make over- 
 tures to the Conservatives — in other words to try to form in 
 circumstances most disadvantageous to itself and to the wel- 
 fare of its party principles a Coalition Government. With 
 all this marching and countermarching at Westminster any- 
 thing might have happened in the country. 
 
 The third supposition of a Labour Government need not 
 detain us. Inevitably its policy would have been such as 
 to force a combination of the two older parties. The time 
 may come when Labour will have a coherent policy on the 
 hundred departments of policy which make the work of 
 Government, but it is not yet. At present its views are for 
 the rnost part in sentimental bondage to phrases, and it is in 
 consequence at the mercy of the extremists who happen to 
 have definite ideas of what they want. Such a Government 
 had it come into power at the end of the war would inevitably 
 have weakened us abroad and destroyed our hopes of peaceful 
 recovery at home, 
 
 A Conservative, Liberal or a Labour Government therefore 
 would have meant disorder at home instead of the com- 
 parative peace that the Coalition has given us ; fresh and 
 uncertain orientations of our friendships abroad instead 
 of those which had stood the test of war. Unless the guesses 
 that have been hazarded of what would probably have 
 happened under other Governments arc very wide of the mark, 
 they would not have given us the peace at home and 
 abroad that w^as the first necessity of the country. 
 
 -Coalition not Opportunist. 
 
 Again, it is not true to sny that the policy of the 
 Coalition is purely opportunist. There may be no Liberal 
 measures in its programme, but there is for all tliat a great
 
 28 
 
 deal of Liberalism. How far is the League of Nations from 
 the League of Peace that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman once 
 advocated ? Have Liberals never preached disarmament, 
 the extension of the franchise, the promotion of popular 
 education, better conditions of labours and other subjects 
 of Coalition legislation ? Have Liberals been indifferent to 
 the wrongs of subject alien races under the Ottoman Empire ? 
 On the other hand, if there have been no Conservative 
 measures in the Government programme, of Conservatism 
 in the higher sense, with its reverence for order and 
 discipline in the State, its dislike of extremes and its 
 preference of facts to theories, there has certainly been 
 no lack. Surely it is to degrade the word " principle " to 
 refuse to see it in such acts and qualities of government as 
 these and to revere it in the mere joinery and upholstery of 
 the party platform ? 
 
 The Charge of Bureaucratic Bias. 
 
 But the two charges oftenest made against the Coalition 
 were that it is extravagant and bureaucratic in its habits, 
 and prolonged the war control for the sake of control long 
 after the real need had disappeared. It is a sufficient reply 
 to this last reproach to remember that nearly all the new 
 departments were brought into existence in order to 
 protect not the merchant or the manufacturers but 
 the consumer, and to maintain that union of classes 
 without which the war would have been lost. They were 
 instruments of the general anti-profiteering policy of the 
 Government. When the war ended there were two policies 
 open to the Government. The}^ might have said " Prices no 
 longer matter, let them rip until every'thing has found its 
 economic level." Easy to say these things, but have those 
 who say them any idea of the frightful turmoil to which such 
 a policy would have led ? If immediately the war was over 
 the bread subsidy had been taken off, the rents of houses and 
 the prices of everything else been left to take care of them- 
 selves, and the Government when asked for new houses re- 
 plied " Houses ? I'm not a joiner and builder. If they -will 
 pay to build, they'll be built soon enough ; if they won't 
 pay, why should I be at the loss ? " not only would such a 
 policy have been treason against the whole set of motives 
 which led to the continuance of the Coalition but it would 
 have led to revolution. Had the Government, as is sug- 
 gested ventriloquised in the mid-Victorian style with an 
 economic man on its knees for a talking doll, the language 
 would have gone down to as deep an infamy in the stor\' of our 
 British Revolution as Marie Antoinette's famous " W^y don't
 
 29 
 
 they eat cake " when they told her the people were rioting 
 because they had no bread. The alternative to this infamy 
 was to temper the east wind of economic Jaw by control, 
 removing the screen as and when the people hardened off 
 from the effects of the war, and this was the Government's 
 policy. No doubt it was in each case a question of some 
 delicacy to know the exact amount of exposure that might 
 safely be given, and it would be a miracle if the Govenimcnt 
 had always been exactly right in this calculation. But to 
 suppose that it loved departments for their own sake was 
 sheer middle-class superstition, like the bogey-man that the 
 Labour party made of Mr. Churchill. 
 
 The Charge of Extravagance. 
 
 The problems of national finance had from the first 
 given the Government the greatest anxiety. But the criticism 
 of finance has certainly not been helpful. Sometimes it 
 is frivolous talk about too many charwomen and tea-drinking 
 flappers, sometimes it is the laborious discovery of mare's 
 nests like that at Slough, sometimes it is the rich man's cry 
 of pain over a democratic budget. At other times it pro- 
 tests against the high salaries paid in new departments, like 
 that of the Ministry of Transport, whereas in fact these 
 salaries are not absolutely high but only relatively to those 
 paid in the older civil serxdce, and are rather evidence of 
 meanness to its old servants than of extravagant generosity 
 to the new. At other times it eats the dinner and rejects the 
 bill. The Government which suffers from the unpopularity of 
 high taxation has good reason to want to curb expenditure — 
 in this respect unhke the House of Commons, which, 
 though it talks economy in the abstract, always urges 
 extravagance in the particular, spending a fresh pound for 
 every penny that it saves — and welcomes rational criticism 
 of policy which would assist its efforts' Criticism, for ex- 
 ample, which should maintain that we are spending far too 
 much on the Navy in present conditions and that we ought 
 to cut it down, or that Army pay is too high or that the new 
 commitments in the East which add to the cost of the Army, 
 should be abandoned, might be wrong, but at any rate it 
 would be relevant and logical. But it is neither logical 
 nor helpful to approve the policy and then object to give 
 it financial support. Neither is it good business, as is so 
 often done, to lump under the same barren curse all expendi- 
 ture, whether reproductive or not. Every business man 
 knows that to save it is often true economy to spend 
 wisely, and the expenditure on housing and on increased 
 industrial efficiency is really in the nature of an investment.
 
 30 
 
 It is unfortunate that we do not keep all our accounts in 
 the same set of books so that every item of outgoing 
 should show opposite it the incoming in the form of 
 greater happiness, political content, and industrial 
 efficiency. If we did, economy discussions would be 
 much more practical. Still, these considerations must not 
 be taken as in any way whittling away the fact that 
 finance is the gravest of all the problems now facing the 
 Government. It has faced worse problems in the past ; it 
 will conquer this, and who else could? Do the working 
 classes want high Tory finance ? or the middle classes Labour 
 finance ? 
 
 V. 
 ALL GOVERNMENT AS COALITION. 
 
 Three Propositions on Coalition. 
 
 These speculations in which we were just now indulging 
 as to what might have happened if there had been a Liberal, 
 a Conservative or a Labour Government in power during the 
 last two years have served as a useful peg on which to hang 
 discussion of the policj'' of the Coalition, but othenvise they 
 have been idle. For in fact. neither a Liberal nor a Con- 
 servative Government was possible in this period, but only a 
 Coahtion. The hollowness of the agitation against Coalition 
 Government may be demonstrated more in detail in the hght 
 of three propositions which, though they may sound para- 
 doxical, are, as will presently be seen, no more than truisms. 
 They are these. 
 
 First, it is useless to argue against Coalition because in 
 fact no other sort of Government is physically possible. 
 Secondly, not only is Coalition the only possible form of 
 Government, but at present this is the only possible 
 Coalition. Thirdly, nearly every government is a form 
 of coalition, and, so far from the present Coalition bemg 
 an innovation in politics, it is merely an attempt to do 
 openly and honestly what in the past has usually been 
 done secretly and dishonestly. The normal alternatives 
 in politics in fact are not between Coalition and party, 
 but between a good form of coalition and a bad form. 
 
 First Proposition — no other sort of Government than 
 A Coalition is possible. 
 
 The first of these propositions was handled with great 
 frankness by the Prime Minister in his address to the Coahtion 
 Liberals in the Westminster Hall on March i8th, 1920. He 
 pointed out that it was a question mainly of figures. At the
 
 31 
 
 last election no party had secured a majority. Ihe Unionists 
 polled under 40 per cent, of the votes cast. The Labour party 
 polled 2,300,000 votes, the Liberal Coalitionists and the 
 National Democratic party about 1,600,000 and the official 
 Liberals about 1,300,000. No party could have commanded 
 a majority at the last election and a Coalition of some sort 
 was inevitable if a stable Government was to be formed. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George carried his analysis further. The by- 
 elections showed the same results. The Unionists polled 
 124,000 votes and the Coalition Liberals, with the National 
 Democrats, 43,000, a total of 167,000 votes cast for the 
 Coalition. The official Liberals polled about one-half or 
 85,000 votes. Labour 146,000 votes. Still no majority for 
 any one party. Mr. Lloyd George did not stop here. 
 
 " I want to follow it up. 1 do not want to exaggerate in the 
 least the number of Liberal Coalition votes, but in this Ust you 
 have three or four constituencies where the Liberal Coalition vote 
 preponderated. In Swansea, Pontefract, Bothwell, and Wellington 
 the vote was, in the main, a Liberal Coalition vote. In other cases 
 I have no doubt at all there was a proportion of Liberal Coalition 
 votes. But if you take out the Liberal Coalition vote from the 
 total Coalition vote, Labour would be first. That is the significant 
 fact. Socialism would poll a majority, not a very clear one, not an 
 overwhelming one, but a majority. Then, if the by-elections are 
 an index at all, what would happen if the Liberal Party fought as 
 a party? The 85,000 would probably become 110,000, perhaps 
 i20,03u, but it would not become a majority. The Coalition vote 
 would come second, Socialism would be first — perhaps by a narrow 
 majority. At the very moment when you want strong, steady 
 government you would have a feeble Socialist Government at the 
 mercy of its extremists." (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Such a Labour Government would inevitably, after a period 
 of more or less damaging strife, have led to a combination 
 of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, that is to something 
 like the present Coalition. 
 
 Second — this is at present the only possible Coalition. 
 
 It will perhaps be said — and here we come to our second 
 proposition — that other and better forms of coalition werc^ 
 possible. They may be in the future, but not now, and still 
 less in 191S when the Third Coalition was formed. If the 
 Sinn Fein members had come to Westminster, we might have 
 had a Coalition which might conceivabl}- some day have been- 
 strong enough to form a government between them and the 
 Labour Party, but would anyone pretend that such a Coali- 
 tion would be preferable to the Coalition of real history. 
 Would the two peas, Sinn Fein Republicanism and Socialism, 
 rattled together in the Labour bladder, have made any
 
 32 
 
 pleasanter a sound than either separately ? Such a CoaUtion 
 of revolution and disorder would of course at once have 
 been countered by a Coalition of all who preferred the ideal 
 of national to that of class consciousness, evolution to revolu- 
 tion, order to civil war. The attraction that the Labour 
 Party exercises at a distance is that of a mirage. At a 
 nearer approach the prospect of greater freedom changes to 
 the bondage of the delegate ; instead of the free play of 
 the mind on the problems of politics there is the omnipresent 
 tyranny of the idea of nationalisation perverting inde- 
 pendent judgment, dragged in by the heels on every occasion, 
 a litmus-paper that turns all fine and varied colourations of 
 politics into a Socialist Red or a bourgeois white. The Labour 
 Party is a Socialist party ; paradoxically, because nothing is 
 more foreign to the genius of our people than the tyranny of 
 an abstraction like socialism and because in fact not one 
 in twentj' of the Labour adherents is a Socalist by 
 conviction and the majority, however thej^ may seek to 
 disguise it, are really disgruntled bourgeoisie, Liberal or 
 Conservative, seeking in the Labour Party the remedy for 
 existing evils that they would more naturally find in the 
 present Coalition. 
 
 Why Coalition with Labour is impossible now. 
 
 One can imagine other forms of Coalition too, and there 
 are good Liberals who talk quite seriously of the prospects of 
 a Coalition between their party and the Labour Party. Such 
 a Coalition would not have been possible two j^ears ago but 
 circumstances may alter. In present conditions to join such 
 a Coalition would be an act of suicide for the Liberal Party, 
 for in its present mood the Labour Party is not in the least 
 inclined to a Fabian compromise. Let Mr. Lloyd George in 
 the Wrstminster Hall again speak for us. 
 
 "There may be some among them who would be willing to 
 pigeon-hole their principles and have a working understanding 
 wiih this party or another, but they are not the inspirers of this 
 new evangel, and until repeated failure has convinced them that 
 they cannot bring the people of the country to this doctrine they 
 will not drop this purjjose of their programme, which makes it 
 impossible to have a common understanding with them 
 
 " Where do Liberals stand on that ? That is the party which 
 would have a majority at the elections if the Liberals and 
 Conservatives were to fight each other. It is not the doctrine of 
 Liberalism. The doctrine of Liberalism is a doctrine that believes 
 that private property', as an incentive, as a means, as a reward, is 
 the most potent agent not merely for the wealth, but for the well- 
 being of the community. That is the doctrine not merely of Peel, 
 of Disraeli, of Salisbury, and Chamberlain ; it is the doctrine of
 
 33 
 
 Gladstone; it is the docirne of Cobden ; it is the doctrine of 
 Bright ; and it is the doctrine of Campbell-Bannerman. It is the 
 doctrine of the greatest leadejs of botli p;irties. (Voices: 'And 
 of Mr. Asquith.) It is the doctrine of all the great Liberal leaders 
 of Ihe past and present. That is the doctrine that has been 
 challenged by the new nienrue. and if Liberals and Conservatives 
 fight each other that doctrine, which menaces the whole fab.ic of 
 society, will triumph." 
 
 Other and subtler combinations from time to time present 
 themselves to the mind of political students. Supposing, 
 for example, that the Labour Party broke away from the 
 extremists who settle its policy, and divided into two com- 
 ponents, the Socialists on the one hand, and on the other, a 
 trade unionist wing which, recruited as it is impartially from 
 both Liberals and Conservatives, is really an anticipation 
 in miniature of the present Coalition, in such a case many 
 things might happen. A conceivable Coalition might be formed 
 out of the trade-unionist wing of the Labour Party combining 
 with Liberals (whether official or Coalition would not in such 
 case matter much) and the young Conservative group, and 
 might last a long time. Those who ask why Mr. Lloyd George 
 did not form a Coalition to the left, doubtless had some such 
 combination as this in their minds. But the condition of 
 such a Coalition would be the throwing off by the Labour Party 
 of the tyranny of its extremists, and of that there is no sign. It 
 is odd that the essentially "John Bull " figure of British Labour 
 should elect to go about wearing the mask of Marx or Bakunin, 
 and perhape the time will come when it will wear its own head 
 and speak with its own voice. When it does it may well be 
 that the ideal Coalition will be a centre Coalition of Liberal, 
 new Labour, and moderate Conservative parties, \A'ith Social- 
 ists forming a separate party on the Left and the extreme Tories 
 a separate party on the Right. But that is in the future not in 
 the present. In the meantime the cleavage in the Liberal 
 party between those who claim the goodwill of the name and 
 those who have the goodwill of the ideas benefits no one but 
 the Labour Party, as the by-elections have shown. Perhaps 
 it does not even benefit the Socialist Party in the long run for 
 these strange accessions from the bourgeois party destroy its 
 internal unity and diminish its efficiency. 
 
 TfflRD — Most parties are themselves a Coalition. 
 
 The third proposition advanced was that most parties 
 are themselves a coalition and that the normal alternati\'es 
 in politics are not between coalition and party government 
 but between one set of coalition and another. If a party were 
 to contain no one within it but those who thought exactly 
 alike on everything, its numbers would necessarily be very*
 
 34 
 
 few. Every combination of more than a dozen men 
 involves a sacrifice of &ome sort for the sake of advantages 
 that are of greater importance. What then are the tests by 
 which we ought to judge a party combination ? Not — Does 
 it keep its doctrines unspotted from contact with the rest of 
 the world ? That were not a party but a priesthood, and like 
 every priesthood without a prophet, doomed sooner or later 
 to die from the poison of its own orthodoxy. Not, Does 
 it act according to precedents, for that were to make front 
 benches into a King's Bench, administering law but making 
 none, sitting but never moving, speaking but never acting. 
 The tests are, What- is its service to the country worth ? 
 Is it an honest association for gem inely national objects 
 of policy, or is it politically sectarian, formed to serve a 
 creed, a clique, a name, or a prejudice ? Are the principles 
 of the association public or is it a mere arrangement by 
 which a few men get end keep the power by tricking and 
 deceiving their folio ers ? 
 
 The Trade Unionists as Barnaby Rudge. 
 
 The present Coalition satisfied all three tests. The official 
 Liberal party breaks down on the second, and the Labour 
 Party on the third. For, as things are, the Labour Party, 
 so far from being purer and more sincere than others, is based 
 on an elaborate political pun. The trade unionists, mainly 
 Liberals and Conservatives, wanted to form a party in 
 Parliament independent of the older organisations — to be in 
 fact an independent Labour Party. But there was already in 
 existence an Independent Labour Party which was Socialistic. 
 And so by a no more essential connection than this pun 
 between the two names, the old trade unionists in changing 
 their name to independent labour found themselves wearing 
 a red cap and have worn it ever since. And yet they are, 
 most of them, as innocent of Socialism as Barnaby Rudge was 
 of the principles of the Lord George Gordon rioters. 
 
 But not only is the Labour Party itself a coalition, of 
 elements that are essentially incompatible^ — the bourgeois trade 
 unionists and the SociaUst theorisers, the Liberal Party is also 
 a coalition between old Whigs and new Liberal and the 
 Conservative Party is a coalition between the old Tories and 
 the new Conservatives. It lies, therefore, neither with 
 Liberals nor Labour men nor even with Conservatives to 
 object to the Coalition as such, for they are themselves a 
 coalition. The difference is that whereas their coalitions are 
 ^sectional in their objects, the present Coalition is national ;
 
 35 • 
 
 that whereas they disguise the fact that they are a coalition, 
 the present Government avows it to all the world ; that 
 whereas with them it has been a source of weakness and 
 inefficiency with the present Coalition it is the secret of ite 
 strength ; and lastly, that whereas their coalitions were made 
 for their own convenience, this Coalition was made for the 
 safety of the state. 
 
 But the essentially coalitionist character of the two older 
 parties must be developed in more detail. For if we find that 
 there is in the Liberal Party a Conservative strain and in the 
 Conservative Party a Radical strain, and that substantially 
 the same conflict between the old and new elements has been 
 going on in both parties^ then the last argument against the 
 present Coalition has disappeared, for it is merely doing 
 for both parties what each has been trying to do for itself, 
 only repeating on a national scale processes to which both 
 parties owe their vitality. 
 
 The political greatness of our country is due mainly 
 to the fact that we have achieved political union earlier than 
 other countries, and so obtained a lead in the race towards 
 free and democratic institutions which we never lost. It is 
 a curious fact that whereas in other countries the develop- 
 ment of parties has been fissiparous, in England there has 
 always been a reluctance to add to the number of parties, 
 as though, while others thought mainly of the difference 
 between parties, we in this country, with our more practical 
 habit of mind, were more attracted by the points of resem- 
 blance and contact. It may be that in the new move- 
 ment for unity, we may be giving a new lead in political 
 efficiency which will do as much for the greatness of our 
 deraiocracy as that earlier struggle with autocracy in 
 which we gained a lead of nearly a century and a half over 
 France. 
 
 VI. 
 
 PARTY COMPOSITES. 
 
 It is believed by many good Liberals that their party 
 is and always has been, the party of the people and the 
 Conservatives the party of aristocrats or at any rate oli- 
 garchs ; and that while the characteristic of their party is 
 trust of the people that of the opposite party is distrust. 
 If that were true, every Liberal would be a democrat and no 
 Conservative ever could be a democrat, and notoriously 
 neither corresponds with the facts. It may help to a better 
 appreciation of the fact that the national possession of
 
 36 
 
 liberty and order is given to the keeping of all parties 
 and not of one only, if we set down a few facts in the history 
 of the two chief political parties. We shall see what composites 
 they are and how often the best men of either party have 
 been nearer to each other than to their own party associates. 
 
 The Whigs not a Democratic party. 
 
 The origins of the Liberal party are in the squire- 
 archy and commercial oligarchy which overthrew Stuart 
 absolutism and later, by the Revolution of 1688, laid 
 the foundations of modern Parliamentary Government 
 Similarly, the origins of the Tory Party doubtless go back 
 to Tudor absolutism. These early Whigs had great political 
 virtues and, in particular, their dislike of absolutism was 
 most wholesome. But they were not a democratic paity, 
 nor had they any of the characteristics of a progressive 
 party, and if absolutism (as it has sometimes done) 
 had undertaken to champion popular rights, they would have 
 regarded it as one cause the more for their dislike of it. In 
 the days of undiluted Whiggerj'' Parliament made no pretence 
 of representing the nation as a whole, and was a mere arena 
 where the Whig factions fought out their family quarrels. 
 So far from being a national party, there never was an 
 oligarchy so exclusive or subsectional. For more than fifty 
 years the Whig oligarchy was in effect the old absolutism 
 put into commission amongst a select coterie of ruling families 
 under the forms of Parliamentary Government. These early 
 party politics had no more of the stuff of modem politics 
 than the Wars of the Roses. 
 
 Chatham as Coalitionist. 
 
 The first man to break this oligarchy was the elder 
 Pitt, a new Whig who formed a Coalition Mmistry with the 
 Whigs from whom he had seceded, supported by the Tories. 
 That under this Coalition Ministry we acquired Canada 
 and India is the least of its titles to fame. Other titles 
 were that, for the first time since Cromwell, otir foreign 
 policy began to reflect the growing influence of the commercial 
 classes, and that his conceptions of the war strategy appro- 
 priate to an island power held almost until the outbreak of 
 the late war, and, with not a few important people, evfen 
 after its outbreak. More important still, he was the first 
 Minister called to power by an unmistakeable expres- 
 sion of the popular will. Modern politics really begin 
 with Chatham's Coalition, not with the Whig Revolutiop-
 
 37 
 
 The younger Pitt as Coalitionist, 
 
 Not only was this Coalition Government of the elder 
 Pitt the first direct contact of the people with modem Parlia- 
 mentary Government, but it is broadly true that through- 
 out the whole of the eighteenth century the strictly party 
 Governments were as a rule, bad, and that the Governments 
 which left their mark for good on the country's history were 
 Coalition. The younger Pitt would, but for the outbreak of 
 the war^with Napoleon, have gone down to history as the 
 first of modern Liberals. Pitt had quarrelled with the Whigs 
 and was kept in power by the Tory Party, but his first Ministry, 
 was the nearest approach to a Liberal Ministry in the demo- 
 cratic sense that the country had yet had. In spite of its 
 name it was in the truest sense a Coalition Ministry ; and if, 
 with the war, Pitt degenerated into a reactionary, some of the 
 blame must be put on the factiousness of Fox and other 
 members of the Whig opposition. Had he received more 
 support from them and been able, as he wished, to bring 
 more Whigs into his Government, the second great Coalition 
 of the eighteenth century might have learned to wage war 
 without sacrifice of domestic liberty, as did the Second 
 Coalition of the Great War with Germany. The measure of 
 the set-back that the development of constitutional freedom 
 suffered in the Napoleonic Wars is the measure of the service 
 which the present Coalition has done to the country. 
 
 The XIXth Century Liberals a Coalition of Whigs, 
 
 cobdenites and radicals. 
 
 When parties began to shape themselves after the War with 
 Napoleon, the composite character of the Liberal Party was 
 apparent. At least three distinct strands of thought went 
 to its formation. There was first a Whig Party, which, 
 after carrying the Reform Bill, thought the work of reform 
 complete, and for the rest of the century contributed 
 nothing to the stock of the country's political ideas, though 
 it continued to live on the ideas of others, disdaining every- 
 thing about them but the power and office that they brought, 
 A second strand of thought was contributed by what would 
 now be called the anti-bureaucratic school of Cobden. 
 Cobden was against the interference of the State in matters 
 of trade and commerce. He was with J. S. Mill and 
 Bentham, one of the three great seminal minds of Liberalism ; 
 but if he was free trade he was also free-labour, and for 
 the same reasons. The third strand was made of the 
 diverse schools of Radicals. These men shared many of 
 
 .'i8(>78i
 
 38 
 
 the fiscal views of the Cobdenites, but on many questions 
 they soon showed marked divergencies both of temperament 
 and of principle. They were as a rule more sanguine in 
 temperament than the rest of the Liberal Party. They 
 Were early believers in Home Rule for Ireland, favoured an 
 advanced programme of political and social reforms, shared 
 none of the Cobdenite scruples about interfering with the 
 conditions of labour, and not infrequently had a great 
 faith in the future greatness of Britain beyond the seas. 
 They were, however, not a united group within the party, 
 and their views varied very considerably from time to time. 
 On all the live questions of politics the Whig element in the 
 Liberal Party was much closer to the Tories than it was to 
 the Radicals, and, from the passing of the Reform Bill down 
 to the formation of the Liberal Unionist Party, the Liberal 
 Party was a Coalition in the bad sense that it maintained 
 external unity as the cost of clear and consistent thinking 
 within the party. Of each of these parties there are repre- 
 sentatives amongst Liberals to-day. The pure Whig repre- 
 sentative since Lord Hartington died is hardest to find, for 
 Viscount Grey, though a pure Whig in foreign affairs, is 
 an advanced thinker on some questions of domestic policy. 
 The Cobdenite tradition in the Liberal Party is repre- 
 sented by Mr. Asquith and most of his followers. 
 The Radical tradition after the secession of Mr. 
 Chamberlain is continued by the Prime Minister and 
 his Liberal followers. Gladstone was the Unk between 
 the Whig and the Cobdenite sections of the party, but 
 belonged to neither, and at no time had any real hold on 
 the Radicals, and the break with Chamberlain followed the 
 Hues of a crack in the party structure that had long been 
 visible. 
 
 Gladstone and Disraeli. 
 
 Gladstone first made his mark in poUtics as a PeeUte 
 Conservative,- and it shows how vague and uncertain are the 
 lines of party division, and how little they correspond to 
 the real divisions of pohtical thought, that of the two great 
 statesmen of Victorian England, the Liberal began his career 
 as a Conservative and the Conservative as a Liberal. And 
 in neither case was there a real volte face. In his foreign 
 pohcy Gladstone was to the end of his life much nearer to 
 the tradition of the Tory Canning, the enemy of the Holy 
 Alhance and the true begetter of the Monroe Doctrine than 
 he was to the Whig- Jingo Palmerston. In his domestic 
 pohtics, again, he was to the end of his life a Peelite, and 
 such developments as took place in his views were no more 
 than might have been expected with the lapse of time. He
 
 39 
 
 was a Peelite, again, in the rigid economy and efficiency of 
 his financial administration. On the other hand, DisraeH 
 in foreign policy had many points of resemblance to the 
 Wliig, Palmerston, but in his domestic policy was a very 
 genuine Radical. The conquest by Disraeli of the Conser- 
 vative Party is recognised as one of the wonders of politics ; 
 yet that Gladstone, who to the end of his long life still main- 
 tained unbroken his Tory tradition, should become the 
 typical Liberal statesman of his century, is perhaps no less 
 wonderful. And yet there are those who would have us 
 believe that the party divisions are the frontier lines of 
 poHtical human nature, which it is taboo to cross. Wliy, there 
 is no statesman of imagination whose thoughts are not across 
 them half a dozen times a day. The true geography of 
 political human nature is not in the hues that party slashes 
 across its surface any more than the natural geography of 
 a country is to be found in its administrative county divia.ons. 
 The}' may correspond, but oftener they do not. 
 
 The Peelite Coalitionists. 
 
 The Bond between Disraeli, Chamberlain and 
 Lloyd George. 
 
 The repeal of the Corn Laws carried by the 
 Conservative, Peel, with Liberal help is yet one more 
 illustration of the fact that most of the great 
 happenings of our political history have been the 
 work of Coalitions. The history of party from that 
 time to the present may be stated in a very few lines. 
 First, the Conservative Party, broken by the action of Peel, was 
 saved by Disraeli, a Tory Radical, and, less hampered than 
 the Liberal Party by the traditions of laissez-faire, passed a 
 remarkable series of political and social reforms. Then, in 
 consequence of the Irish spht, came the {^oalition with the 
 Libersd Unionists, among whom the influence of the Radical 
 Chamberlain was dominant. Chamberlain brought to the 
 party his zeal for Radical reform, and the Conservative 
 working man was discovered to be . more numerous than 
 ever. But, having strengthened Conservatives by Radical 
 measures, he proceeded to weaken it by>a war in South Africa 
 that outlasted its popularity and by an imperialistic variant 
 on the old Tory theme of Protection. Tlie election of 1906, 
 fought on free-trade, brought back the Liberals with Cobden- 
 ism stronger and higher in the counsels of the party tlian it 
 had ever been before. But it soon became apparent that 
 the driving power was not Cobdenism,'* but the new 
 Radicalism of Mr. Lloyd George. Then came the war, 
 which made the spirit d Radical change dominant not
 
 49 
 
 only in the Liberal, bat in the Conservative Party. It 
 led naturally to the present Coalition, whose achieve- 
 ments both in Vv^ar and in peace have been greater 
 than that of any previous government in our history. 
 
 Such in outline is the history of the two older parties in our 
 politics since the repeal of the Corn Laws. Observe how 
 ludicrous the outline makes the theory of a deep and per- 
 manent division between Liberal and Conservative Parties, 
 and how the true Liberal and the true Conservative traditions 
 keep emerging, now on this, now on that side of party 
 nomenclature, so that the conclusion is forced upon us that 
 the names are only corks floating on the surface of pcditical 
 thought. 
 
 Disraeli as Tory-Radical. 
 
 Of the vigour of Disraeli's Radicalism there can be 
 
 no question to anyone who has read his political writings, 
 nor of the value of the great reforms which he carried. " Long 
 before what is called the ' Condition of the People Question,' " 
 he wrote in 18.44, " was discussed in the House of Commons, 
 I had employed my pen on the subject. I had long been 
 aware that there was something rotten in the core of our 
 social system. I had seen that, while immense fortunes were 
 accumulating, while wealth was increasing to a superabund- 
 ance, and while Great Britain was cited throughout Europe 
 as the most prosperous nation in the world, the working 
 classes, the creators of wealth, were steeped in the most 
 abject poverty and gradually sinking into the deepest degra- 
 dation." His novels show that these words were written 
 with perfect sincerity. Or take the following passage from 
 a speech of his at the end of 1862 : — 
 
 "To build up a community not upon Liberal principles, 
 which anyone may fashion according to his fancy, but upon 
 popular principles, which assert equal rights, civil and religious ; 
 to uphold the institutions of the country because they are the 
 embodiments of the wants and wishes of the nation, and protect 
 us alike from individual tyranny and popular outrage ; equally to 
 resist democracy and oligarchy, and favour that principle of pure 
 aristocracy which is tlie only basis and security lor constitutional 
 government : to be vigilant to guard and prompt to vindicate the 
 honour of the countr}'-, but to hold aloof from that turbulent 
 diplomacy which only distracts the mind of the people from 
 internal improvement ; to lighten taxation ; frugally but wisely to 
 administer the pubUc treasure ; to favour popular education 
 because it is the best guarantee for pubhc order ; to defend local 
 government, and to be as jealous of the rights of the working men 
 as of the prerogative of the Crown and the privileges of the 
 Senate — these were once the privileges that regulated Tory 
 statesmen.'"
 
 41 
 
 With one sentence out or altered in its terminology 
 these are ideals, not of Tory statesmanship onh^ but of the 
 purest spirit of Liberalism. 
 
 Or take this passage in reply to a letter from Charles 
 Attwood, a very earnest and doughty champion of popular 
 rights : — 
 
 " I entirely agree with you that a union between 
 the Conservative Party and the Radical masses 
 offers the only means by which we can preserve 
 the Empire. Their interests are identical ; united 
 they form the nation ; and their division has only 
 permitted a miserable minority under the specious 
 name of the people to assail all rights of property 
 and person. Since I first entered political life, 
 now eight years ago, I have worked for no oth^: 
 object and other end than to aid the formation of 
 a National party." 
 
 Such passages might be multiplied indefinitely. Is there 
 anyone who can read them and maintain that only on one side 
 of an artificial frontier line that is labelled Liberal is there 
 real passion for freedom, and the rights of the people ? Or 
 that the idea now embodied in the Coalition is the mere child 
 of expediency, and not one of the oldest and most cherished 
 aspirations in politics ? 
 
 Home Rule an example of the inefficiency of party 
 
 METHODS. 
 
 Or is it pretended that party politics are so efficient an 
 engine of national progress that no change is desirable or 
 improvement possible ? Of that the tra.gedy of the Home 
 Rule failure is surely the best disproof. Hov/ far Lord 
 Salisbury, in his conversations with Parnell, committed him- 
 self to sympathy with Irish Home Rule has never been made 
 clear, but certain it is that if there had been the will, a Coalition 
 of parties, though it had been limited to the single subject 
 of Home Rule, could have settled the Irish question once and 
 for all. And certain it is, too, that if Gladstone had realised 
 that the Liberal Party of that time was in fact itself a Coali- 
 tion, and had taken counsel, as he might and should have 
 done, with the leaders of its component groups, Chamberlain 
 need never have been allowed to leave the party. He left 
 mainly, no doubt, on the Home Rule issue, but also because 
 he felt that the Importance of his Radical group and the value
 
 42 
 
 of its ideas were imperfectly realised in the council of the 
 party. Thus the early history of the Home Rule failure 
 illustrates very forcibly both the superiority of Coalition 
 over party as a means of solving a political problem, and 
 also the superiority of a Coalition that is open and frank 
 (as the present Coalition is) over one which acts on the 
 assumption that it is united in every respect, and ignores 
 differences between the groups composing the party until 
 they are so gross that they cannot be surmounted. 
 
 Chamberlain as Coalitionist. 
 
 Chamberlain's departure from the Liberals was a great 
 loss to his old party and a great gain to his new party, for 
 the Coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal 
 Unionists was exceedingly fertile in important measures of 
 reform, and adds one more to the numerous instances that 
 have been noted of the efficacy of a Coalition in a national 
 crisis. The Conservative Party was exceedingly fortunate 
 in having a succession of able men to keep alive the tradition 
 of progressive reform in the party. First Disraeli, a recruit 
 from the Radicals ; then Lord Randolph Churchill (a Peelite 
 Conservative in everything but name) and his associates of 
 the Fourth Party ; and finally Mr. Chamberlain, another 
 recruit from the Radicals. 
 
 It is a tempting speculation what might have happened 
 if Chamberlain had not left the Liberals. The South African 
 War might have been avoided, and the revival of Protection 
 if it had been attempted might have taken a very different 
 and much milder form. He could not have persuaded the 
 Liberal Party to either, but he might have identified it with 
 the cause of democratic Colonial Imperialism. Mr. Cham- 
 berlain's services to his new party were offset by great draw- 
 backs, but the Coalition was productive on the balance of 
 great political good. Mr. Chamberlain was a very great 
 man, and the refusal of his old party to acknowledge his 
 quality is one of the worst examples in modem political 
 history of the degeneration of party into partisanship and 
 Rcacour. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George. 
 
 Once more, after .the General Election in igo6, the Liberal 
 Party came back in greater strength than ever since the first 
 Reform Act. Opinions differed as to the explanation of 
 the great landslide in popular opinion which took place 
 at that election, but it may be doubted whether it was really
 
 43 
 
 due to any intelligent appreciation by the electorate of the 
 niceties of the Free Trade controversy. The real cause of their 
 victory was probably tlie strong reaction in the country against 
 tlie war in South Africa and a feeling to which Chinese labour 
 and the proposal to tax food alike contributed, that the Tory 
 democracy which had been dangled so long before their eyes 
 was a deception. However that may be, the reaction, it 
 is clear, would not have lasted so long if it had not been for 
 the vigorous reform policy of Mr. Lloyd George. No party 
 can live by merely defending a position, even though 
 it is so important a position as Free Trade. It must attack, 
 and the work of attack nearly all of it fell on Mr. Lloyd George 
 and the Radical wing of his party. It is a curious fact that 
 this Radical wing of the Liberal Party, which was neither 
 Wliig nor Cobdenite, and never, down to the secession of 
 Mr. Chamberlain, exercised anything like its proper influence 
 in the party council, first, under Disraeli, rescued the old 
 Tory party from utter ruin and converted it into a Conser- 
 vative Party ; then, in the person of Chamberlain, again 
 reinforced the Conservative Party and became the dominant 
 influence in its counsels, and, finally, in Mr. Lloyd George, 
 contributed the driving force to the Liberal Party in 1906 
 and the succeeding years. The work of this 'Radical wing 
 for the Liberals was still incomplete when down came the 
 cataclysm of war, and it became work for the nation as a 
 whole. 
 
 VII. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 
 
 The Investment of Victory. 
 
 It is now time to gather up the argument. The object in 
 these pages has been not to discuss the details of the Govern- 
 ment's policy, but to reconcile (if reconciliation be needed) 
 2;ood party men, Liberal and Conservative, to the idea of 
 Coalition Government. The real motives of Coalition, as 
 of any other form of Government, should be that it best 
 serves the interest of the State ; that justification lacking, 
 everything else is lacking. It has been shown that in the last 
 two years of peace, as in the previous two years of war, the 
 Coalition has done a service to the Stale such as could have 
 been done by no other Government. Indeed, to put it no 
 higher, is grossly to understate the truth, for the truth is 
 that no other form of Government could either have won the 
 war or kept the peace. If the Coalition had dissolved at 
 the Armistice, and a party government had taken its place, 
 there would certainly have been civil strife — perhaps revolu-
 
 44 
 
 tion and civil war — at home, and there would have been no 
 settlement abroad. Victory is not something to be 
 won and then spent. It must be invested prudently 
 so that it will bear interest in human freedom, happi- 
 ness, and content. The Coalition has invested well, and 
 already returns are beginning to come in. Under any other 
 Government, not only would there have been no returns, but 
 the capital itself might by this time have been dissipated. 
 If there have been times during the last two years when even 
 the Coalition, backed as it is by an enormous majority and 
 its great prestige both at home and abroad, has had cause to 
 fear that, after all, war might have to be renewed with 
 Germany, or that our sudden liberty from the bondage of 
 war might degenerate into ruinous license and a new bondage 
 of class to class, how could a mere party Government have 
 hoped to surmqunt these dangers ? 
 
 • But our argument has not stopped here. It has sought 
 to show that this union, in addition to its services to the 
 country, and indeed, in consequence of them, has also served 
 to keep the soul of our domestic politics alive. As a member 
 of the Coalitiori the Liberal has become a better Liberal, the 
 Conservative a better Conservative. Is not the frivolity of 
 most of the complaints made by party men against the 
 Coalition policy in itself proof that there is nothing un-Liberal 
 or un-Conservative in that policy ? It has, for example, been 
 objected by some Liberals that by consenting to the abandon- 
 ment of the land taxes, the Prime Minister has betrayed the 
 hopes of the " People's Budget." On the contrary, he has' 
 prepared the way to their realisation by retracing his steps 
 along paths which were clearly leading nowhere, certainly 
 not to the increased revenue which it was the chief object 
 of these taxes to obtain. From the other side, again (to take 
 a criticism of another order), it has been objected that the 
 Governmenfs action in the case of General Dyer has improperly 
 increased the difficulties of public servants abroad in resisting 
 the forces of anarchy. On the contrary, the argument of 
 force and violence is the one which imposes the heaviest and 
 most unequal burden on our agents abroad, and by indicating 
 its disapproval the Government makes easier the task of the 
 others. There has never been a Government more Liberal 
 than this or more Conservative ; more Liberal in its 
 measures, more Conservative in its conception of a 
 State united by the duty that all classes owe to each 
 other.
 
 45 
 
 The Liberal and the Conservative Leaven. 
 
 The truth is that there is no Liberalism withcut a strain 
 of Conservatism, no Conservatism witliout a leaven of Liberal 
 faith. This is not paradox, but sober truth, illustrated by the 
 brief sketch that has been given of the history of the two 
 older parties. Love of freedom is not the monopoly of 
 either party, nor yet the faith in the sovereignty of the people's 
 will. There is not a principle of either Liberal or Con- 
 servative Policy that cannot be illustrated from the history 
 of the other, and for which the other party has not worked 
 quite as hard. Of all the principles of Liberalism, enfranchise- 
 ment is commonly regarded as the most distinctive. Yet 
 the Conservative Act of 1867 enfranchised as many as Grey 
 and Gladstone did by their Reform Acts, and neither a Liberal 
 nor a Conservative, but a Coalition of both, has just passed 
 a Reform Act which dwarfs its predecessors. Can w# resist 
 the conclusion that a combination of parties has a greater 
 faith in the people than any of them singly has ever shown ? 
 Again, modern Conservatism has tended to identify itself with 
 the development of the political unity between Great Britain 
 and her Dominions and possessions overseas. Yet Durham, 
 who settled Canada, was a Whig, and the first Imperial 
 Federationists were Radical, like Sir George Gre}^ But 
 Coalition, by definitely putting India on the road to Dominion 
 status, has done more than either party for ultimate federal 
 unity, of which the prime condition is equality of political 
 status. It was the Coalition, too, who at the Peace Conference 
 insisted on the self-governing Dominions being given 
 the rank of full nationhood. Was it a Liberal or a Con- 
 servative polic}' ? It is both and more than either. One 
 might go through all the departments of national policy and 
 find the same phenomenon to admire. What is the League 
 of Nations but Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's aspiration of 
 the League of Peace turned into actuality, with a Cecil for 
 its high priest and an ardent band of young Conservatives 
 for its acolytes ? It is a common reproach against the 
 present House of Commons that it is a House of plutocrats. 
 Yet this plutocratic House has sanctioned a taxation 
 of wealth which, under normal conditions, would be 
 ferocious, with less agitation than old-fashioned Liberals 
 made over a halfpenny on a box of maLches. In Labour 
 matters the legislation of a House alleged to be reactionary 
 has justified the advice that Disraeli gave to the Chartists, 
 that they would begin to achieve results when they changed 
 Jack Straw for Lord John Straw. Not that its legislation 
 has been revolutionary in spirit ; it has been advanced 
 precisely because it has resisted the panacea of Socialism
 
 46 
 
 and thereby preserved the principle of individual liberty 
 and enterprise, disciplined to higher conceptions of social 
 duty as the mainspring of progress. Without the Coalition. 
 Liberal doctrine in Labour questions was in danger of being 
 devoured by Socialism ; its foothold between progressive 
 Conservatism and the Socialistic creed was every year becom- 
 ing narrower and more insecure, and the alliance with what is 
 best and most progressive in the Conservative Party has 
 saved it from a plunge in which the old monarchic tyranny 
 which it once helped to overthrow would have reappeared as 
 the tyrann}^ of the State — the worst tyranny of all, because 
 it has no head that can be taken off. Ireland ? What, again, 
 but the Coalition could have accomplished the miracle of 
 convertLiig the Conservative Party, and even Ulster, to 
 Home Rule ? But to continue the catalogue of measures 
 and principles would be to incur monotony. 
 
 Union is not stagnation. 
 
 There is one truth, revealed by the war as though by a 
 flash of lightning, which reduces all these paradoxes to plain 
 commonplace, making sense of the apparent contradictions 
 of history and nonsense of the vituperations of opposing 
 platforms. And it is this. Both parties have been aiming 
 at the same ends, and often by the same means. Peace in 
 the world, the union of classes, and progress of the nation 
 towards freedom, . happiness, contentment — these are ideaJs 
 too great to be coerced within the four corners of any single 
 party programme. For generations the elector has been 
 taught that the opposite party is the great enemy of his 
 ideals. It is not true. There are as many enemies to one's 
 ideals in one's own party as in the other, as many friends to 
 them in the other party as in one's own. The real issue 
 in the politics, whether of party or of the nation, is this. 
 Shall we serve the name or the reality for which it 
 stands ? Shall we, by meaningless strife and obstruction, 
 work for party and defeat its national ends, or shall we, by 
 union and co-operation, work for the nation, and by so doing 
 realise the true end of the party ? There are two rival schools 
 in politics and they are not known by the names of Liberal and 
 Conservative. One swears by the name of party, the other 
 holds by the union of parties. One thinks that the way to 
 progress is to discover the points of difference with half one's 
 fellow-citizens, to exaggerate them until politics become a 
 caricature of reason and to obstruct attempts to sei;ve the 
 State that are not our ways. The other holds that there 
 will still be material for effective opposition when the artificial 
 opposition of faction has been shed, that our aim shtmld be 
 to discover how much we have in common v/ith our neighbour.
 
 47 
 
 that harmony is more fertile than strife. It may be that the 
 parties forming a CoaHtion will not always be the same. 
 Union is not stagnation, and the true centre of gravity in 
 national affairs may move now towards the right and now 
 again to the left. But any true Coalition, whether of the 
 right or of the left, will have these infallible character* "tics. 
 It will reject the phrases of politics for the realities, the 
 words for the things ; it will seek for the unity underlying 
 our differences, and not for the differences overlying the 
 unity ; and it will make the machinery of politics the 
 servant, not the master ; it will subordinate the priests 
 of party politics to the prophets and seers of national 
 union. 
 
 Nor let it be thought tliat the war which revealed the 
 need of this union has also exhausted it. We are only at 
 the threshold of what ma}^ be accomplished. If party politics 
 have been barren of results by comparison with the expen- 
 diture of effort, it is because the country has fought with 
 one hand behind it, if not actively obstructing the work. 
 With two hands to the task are there any hopes of what 
 politics can do for our country that the Coalition cannot, 
 and will not fulfil ? 
 
 July -^ist, 1920.
 
 49 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 African, South, war .. .. .,. ... .. .. 40, 43 
 
 Agriculture, Coalition Manifesto and «. ... . . 13 
 
 America — 
 
 Party strife in , . . . . . . . . . .,. 17, 18 
 
 Peace Treaty and . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 Analysis of the Argument . . . , . . . . . . i 
 
 Arabia — 
 
 Arab nationality revived . . . . . . .,. 16 
 
 Constitutional reform in ... . . . , . , 20 
 
 Armaments, 3rd Coahtion and reduction of . . . . 12 
 
 Army, Mr. Churcliill re-makes the . . . . . . . . 21 
 
 Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.— 
 
 CoaUtion Government formed by . . . . . . 4 
 
 Cobdenite tradition represented by . . . . . . 39 
 
 Compared with Mr. Lloyd George . . . . , . 5-6 
 
 House of Commons (19 18) impotent . . . . . . 9 
 
 Irish unity and . . . . . . . . . . , . 20 
 
 Unity, Need for continued National . . . . . . 8 
 
 Unity of Command and . . , . . . . . . . 5 
 
 Asquithians — 
 
 Coalitionism of .. ... .. .. .. .. 35 
 
 Composite character of Liberalism . . . . . . 36 
 
 George, Mr. Lloyd, held responsible for General 
 
 Election (1918) debacle . . . . . . . . 8-9 
 
 A.ttwood's, Charles, Letter to Disraeh . . . . . . 40-1 
 
 Australia, Coalition adopted in . . . . . . . . 7 
 
 Austria and the Great War . . ... . , . . . . 15 
 
 Beaconsfield, Earl of. See Disraeli, B. 
 
 Bentham and Liberahsm . . . . . . . . . . 38 
 
 Bohemia, New State of . . . . . . . . . . 16 
 
 Bothwell gives a Liberal Coalition vote . . . . . . 32 
 
 Bureaucratic bias charged against Coalition . . . . 29 
 
 Burke's definirion of Party , . . . . . . . . . 3 
 
 By-election results . . . . . . . . . , . . 31 
 
 Campbell-Bannerman, Rt. Hon. Sir H., and a League of 
 
 Peace . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 28, 46 
 
 Canada — 
 
 Acquired under a Coahtion . . . . . . . . 37 
 
 Coahtion adopted in . . . . . . . . . . 7 
 
 Durham, Lord, and .. ... .. .. .. 45 
 
 Cecil, Lord Robert, k.c, and League of Nations . . . . 46 
 
 Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Joseph — 
 
 As'Coahtionist . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 
 
 Secession from Liberal Party . . . . . . . . 39 
 
 Unionist Party and . . . . . , . . . . 40, 43 
 
 Chartists, Disraeli's advice to ... . . . . . . 46
 
 50 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chatham, Earl of. See Pitt, William. 
 
 Chinese labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 
 
 Churchill, Lord Randolph, and Fourth I'arty • . . .^. 43 
 
 Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.— 
 
 Army rc-making . . . . . . . . . . ... 21 
 
 Labour Party's bogey-man . . . . . . . . ' 29 
 
 Clemenceau, M., and Peace . . . . ' . . , . . . . 9 
 
 Coalition — 
 
 Agitation against, hollow . . . . ^ . .,. 31 
 
 Asquith, Mr., forms First . . . . . . . . 4 
 
 on Need for continued National Unitj' . . . . 8 
 
 Bureaucratic bias charged against . . . . . . 29 
 
 Burke's definition of Party fits . . . . . . . . 3 
 
 By-election poll of . . . . . . . . . . 31 
 
 Chamberlain, Mr. J., as Coalitionist , . . . . . 42 
 
 Colonial policy of the . . . . . . . . . . 20 
 
 Conscription abolished by . . . . . . . . 22 
 
 Conservative influence on Programme of . . . . 28 
 
 Criticisms of . . . . . . , . . . , . 24 
 
 Disraeli and a National Party . . . . . . . . 41 
 
 Extravagance urged against . . . . . . . . 29-30 
 
 General Election, 1918, and .. .. .. .. 8-1 1 
 
 George, Mr. Lloyd, addresses Liberals of . . . . 31 
 
 and principles of National Unit)' . . . , 4 
 
 Manchester speech on . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 secures most complete . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 Hewart's, Sir G., Test of a good Coalitionist . . . . 24 
 
 If a Liberal Government had been in Power ? . . 26 
 
 India placed on road to Dominion status by . . . . 46 
 
 Irish poUcy of the . . . . . . . . . . 20-1 
 
 Labour policy of the . . . . . . . . . . 23 
 
 Legislative acliievement of the . . . , . . 14-15, 18-19 
 
 Liberal and Conservative leaven in . . . . . . 45 
 
 Liberal and Legislation of the . . . . . . . . 28 
 
 Liberal Unionist and Conservative Party . . . . 40 
 
 Manifesto of November, 1918 .. .. .. .. 11-13 
 
 Opportunism refuted . . . . . . . . . . 27-8 
 
 Paris achievements of . . . . . . . . . . 16-18 
 
 Parties are themselves a . . . . . . . . 34 
 
 Party principles in keeping of . . . . , . 2-3, 25 
 
 Peelite Coalitionists . . . . . . . . . . 40 
 
 Pitt, W., Earl of Chatham, as Coalitionist . . . . 37 
 
 Pitt, W., the younger, Coalition Ministry of . . . . 37 
 
 PoUcy not a compromise . . . . . . . . 14 
 
 Principles won the War . . . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 Profiteering policy of the . . . . . . . . 29 
 
 Representation of People Act passed bj^ the . . . . 23 
 
 2nd, and Our faith in Victory . . . . . . . . 5, 6 
 
 Services to the State . . . , . . . . . . 44 
 
 Socialism resisted by . . . . . . . . . . 46 
 
 Subterranean forces against . . . . . . . . 7-8 
 
 Trade Union wing of Labour Party and . . . . 3/j 
 
 What might have happened under a Conservative 
 
 Government . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 
 51 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Cobdenism — 
 
 Anti-bureaucratic school of . . , . , . . . 38 
 
 Asquith, Mr., represents tradition of . . . . . . 39 
 
 1906 General Election and . . . . . . . . 40 
 
 See also Free Trade. 
 
 Colonial Empire, Disraeli on . . . , . . . . . . 20 
 
 Comradeship of Party . . . . . . . . . . 2 
 
 Congress of Vienna . . . . . . . . . , . . 15 
 
 Conscription — 
 
 Coalition abolishes . . . . . . . . . . 22 
 
 Peace Treaty and . . .. .. .. .. .. 17 
 
 Simon, Sir J., leaves Coalition on . . . . . . 5 
 
 Conservative Party. See Unionist Party. 
 
 Corn Laws repeal . . . , . . . . . . , . 40 
 
 Demobilisation — 
 
 Coalition programiuc for. . .. .. ., .. 12 
 
 Rapid . . . . . . . . . . 17, 21 
 
 Denmark, Coalition adopted in . , . . . . . . 7 
 
 Disabled Men, ProArision for . . . . , . . . . . 21 
 
 Disraeli, B., Earl of Beaconsfield — 
 
 Chartists, Advice to . . . . . . . . . . 46 
 
 Colonial Empire and . . . . . . . , . . 20 
 
 Conservative Party saved by . . . . . . , . 40 
 
 Foreign PoUc}'^ of . . . . . . . . . . 39 
 
 Radicalism of . . . . . . . . . . . , 40-1 
 
 Reform Act of . . . . . . , . . . . . 23 
 
 Dumping, Coalition Manifesto and . . . . . . . . 13 
 
 Durham, Lord, and Canada . . . . . . . . . . 45 
 
 Dyer, General . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 45 
 
 Education — ^ 
 
 Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 
 
 Coalition Manifesto . . . . . . . . . . 13 
 
 Egypt, Constitutional reform in . . . . . . . . 20 
 
 Enfranchised under Representation of People Act . . 23 
 
 Ex-Sailors and Soldiers. Ses Disabled Men. 
 
 Extravagance charged against Coalition .. .. ., 29-30 
 
 Financial extravagance charged against Coalition . . 29-30 
 
 Fiscal policy. See Free Trade. Paris Resolutions. 
 
 Food — 
 
 Ministiy and Rationing system . . . . . . 6 
 
 Taxation, Coalition Manifesto and . . . . . . 13 
 
 Fourth Party and Lord Randolph Churchill . . . . 43 
 
 Fox, Charles James, Factiousness of . . . . . . 37 
 
 France — 
 
 Coalition adopted in . . . . . . . . . . 7 
 
 League of Nations and . . ,. . . . . . . 17 
 
 Free Trade — ^ 
 
 Coalition Manifesto and , . .;. . . . . . . 13 
 
 Coalition Policy a compromise . . . . . . . . 14 
 
 1906 General Election and . . . . .. ^. 40, 43 
 
 Runciman, Mr. , and Paris Resolutions . . . . 5 
 
 See also Protection.
 
 52 
 
 PAGE 
 
 General Election, 1906 — 
 
 Liberal Party after . . . . . . .„ . . 43 
 
 General Election, 19 18 — 
 
 George, Mr. Lloyd, analyses figures of ... . . 31 
 held responsible for Asquithian debdcle at ... 8-9 
 
 George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd- — 
 
 Asquithian debdcle at 1918 General Election and . . 8-9 
 
 Coalition almost coinplete under . . . . . . 6 
 
 Coalition Liberals addressed by. : .. .. .. 31-2 
 
 Coalition Manifesto of November, 1918 .. .. 11-12 
 
 Compared with Mr. Asquith . . . . . . , . 5-6 
 
 Liberal-Labour Coalition impossible . . . . . . 33 
 
 Manchester speech on Coalition. . , , . . . . 10 
 
 Prinkipo proposals of . . . . . , . . , . 17 
 
 Radical tradition represented by . . . . . . 39 
 
 Radicalism of . . . . . . , . . . , . 40 
 
 Reform policy of, after 1906 Election .\ . . . . 43 
 
 Unity, National, and . . ... . . , . . . 4 
 
 Germany — 
 
 Peace Treaty changes in ^. . . . . . . 16 
 
 Political breakdown of , . ... . . . . . . 7 
 
 "War's, The Great, effect upon . . . . . . . . 15 
 
 Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E.— 
 
 Coercion of Ulster ,, .. .. .. ., 20 
 
 Link between Whig and Cobdenite sections . . ... 39 
 
 Reform Act of . . . . . . . . . . ... 23 
 
 Greece, Peace Treaty and . . . . . . . . . . 16 . 
 
 Grey, Sir George, Radical and Imperial Federationist .... 46 
 
 Grey of Fallodon, Viscount, Whiggisra of . . .,. .... 39 
 
 Hartington, Lord, almost last of the Whigs . . ... 38 
 
 Hewart's, Rt. Hon. Sir G., k.c. Test of a good Coalitionist 24 
 Home Rule — 
 
 Conservative Party converted to . . ... ... 46 
 
 Example of inefficiency of Party methods . . ... 42 
 
 Housing ., .. .. .. .. .. ..13,22 
 
 Hume on British as fighters . . . . . . . . . . 3 
 
 Imperial Preference.. Coalition Manifesto and . . .... 13 
 
 Independent Labour Party . . . . , . . . . . 35 
 
 India — 
 
 Acquired under a Coalition . . . . . . .„ 37 
 
 Coalition favours self-government for . . . . ... 12-13 
 
 Coalition, services to . , . . . . , . .,. 46 
 
 Government Bill, Greatness of ... . . ... .^. 19 
 
 Ireland — 
 
 Coalition favours self-government for . . . . 12-13, 20-1 
 
 Conservative Party converted to Home Rule . , 46 
 
 Home Rule an example of inefficiency of Party 
 
 methods , . . , . . . . . . ... 42 
 
 Nationalists unrepresented in Coalition ... a.. 7 
 See also Sinn Fein. 
 
 Italy, CocUition adopted in ...„«.„„ 7
 
 53 
 
 Jewish State in Palestine 
 
 Labour, Coalition policy towards 
 Labour Party — 
 
 By-elections poll of 
 
 Churchill, Mr., the bogey-man of 
 
 Coalitionism of . . 
 
 Coherent policy wanted by 
 
 General Election, 191 8, and . . . . 
 
 George, Mr. Lloyd, on Liberal coalition with 
 
 Independent, Socialism of 
 
 Minority favoured Peace of Accommodation 
 
 Nationalisation supported by . . 
 
 Sinn Fein and 
 
 Socialism of ..... 
 
 Trade Unionist wing of . . 
 Land taxes, Abandonment of 
 Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonai, CoaUtion Manifesto and 
 League of Nations — 
 
 Campbell-Banneiman, Sir H., and League of Peace 
 
 Cecil, Lord R., and 
 
 Coalition Manifesto and 
 
 Covenant of 
 
 France and 
 
 Peace Treaty and . . 
 Legislative achievement of Coalition 
 
 Liberal Party — 
 
 Chamberlain, Mr. J., and 
 
 Leaven in Coalition Government . . 
 
 19th century Coalition of Whigs, Cobdenites and 
 Radicals . . 
 
 1906 General Election and 
 
 Radical wing the driving force in 1906 
 See also Asquithians. Coalition. 
 Liberal Unionist coalition with Conservative Party 
 Liquor Traffic, Coalition Manifesto and 
 Lords, Coalition and reform of House of 
 Ludendorff on Germany's breakdown 
 
 Marie Antoinette and French Revolution .,. 
 
 Middle East and Turkey 
 
 Mill, J. S., and Liberalism 
 
 Money, Fall in value of 
 
 Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S., and Government of India Bill 
 
 Montesquieu on democracy . . 
 
 Morley's, Lord, timidity in Indian reform .„ 
 
 Napoleonic Wars — 
 
 Constitutional freedom set back by 
 
 Contrasted with Great War . . «. 
 
 National Democratic Party — 
 
 By-election poll of 
 
 General Election of 1918 and 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 16 
 23 
 
 31 
 29 
 
 • 35 
 27 
 
 31 
 33 
 35 
 
 7 
 23 
 32 
 32 
 33-4 
 45 
 11-12 
 
 28, 46 
 46 
 12 
 20 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 18-19 
 
 43 
 45 
 
 38 
 
 43 
 
 43-4 
 
 40 
 13- 14 
 13. 14 
 
 7 
 
 29 
 20 
 
 38 
 22 
 19 
 19 
 19 
 
 37-8 
 15 
 
 31 
 31
 
 54 
 
 PAGE 
 
 National Party, Disraeli and a . . . . . . . . 41 
 
 Nationalisation, Labour Party and . . . . . . . . 23 
 
 New Zealand, Coalition adopted in . . . . . . . . 7 
 
 Palestine — 
 
 Constitutional reform in .. .. .. .. 20 
 
 Jewish State in . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 
 
 Palmerston, Lord, Whig- jingoism of .. .. .. 39 
 
 Paris— " '; 
 
 Resolutions, Mr. Runciman and . . . . . . 5 
 
 Treaty of . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 15 
 
 Parnell's conversations with Lord Salisbury . . . . 42 
 
 Party— 
 
 Burke's definition of . . . . . . . . . , 3 
 
 Comradeship of . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 
 
 Controversy ended by Great War . . . . . . 4 
 
 Ireland an object lesson of . . . . . . . . 21 
 
 Most parties are themselves a Coalition . . . . 34 
 
 Politics degenerate into Faction . . . . . . 3 
 
 Principles respected by Coalition . . .... 25 
 
 Peace — 
 
 Achievements .. .. .. .. .. .. 16-17 
 
 Coalition programme for. . .. ..... .. 12 
 
 Conference, Dominions at . . . . . . . . 46 
 
 George, Mr. Lloyd, and . . .... . . . . 9 
 
 In War and War in Peace . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 Unity, National, necessary for . . . . . . . . 4 
 
 Wilson, President, and . . . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 Peel, Sir Robert, Conservative Party broken by . . . . 40 
 
 " People's Budget " . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 
 
 Pitt, WiUiara, Earl of Chatham, as Coalitionist . . . . 37 
 
 Pitt, William, the younger, Coalition Ministry of . . . , 37 
 
 Poland, New State of . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 
 
 Pontefract gives a Liberal Coalition vote . . . . . . 32 
 
 Preference, Coalition Manifesto and Imperial . . . . 13 
 
 Prinkipo proposals of Mr. Lloyd George . . . . . . 17 
 
 Production, Coalition Manifesto and increased . . . . 13 
 
 Profiteering policy of the Coalition . . . . . . . . 29 
 
 Protection, Mr. J. Chamberlain and . . . . . . 40, 43 
 
 Radicalism — 
 
 Disraeli as Tory-Radical . . . . . . . . 40-1 
 
 Diverse schools of . . . . . . . . . . 38 
 
 George, Mr, Lloyd, represents tradition of . . . . 39, 40 
 
 Liberal Party and, in 1906 . . . . . . . . 43-4 
 
 Railways — 
 
 Coalition Manifesto and . . . . . . . . . . 13 
 
 Transport Act and . . . . . . . . . . 22 
 
 Rationing system and submarine campaign . . . . 6 
 
 Raw Materials, Coalition Manifesto and , . . . . . 13 
 
 Reform Acts, Number enfranchised by . . . . . . 23 
 
 Reparation, German . . . . . . . . . . . . t6 
 
 Representation of the People Act . . . . . . . . 23 
 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter, and Paris Resolutions . . 5
 
 55 
 
 Russia — 
 
 Anaxchy in 
 
 George's, Mr. Lloyd, Prinkipo proposals 
 
 Political disease in 
 
 War prolonged in 
 
 Sailors. See Demobilisation. Disabled Men. 
 
 Salisbury, Lord, and Home Rule 
 
 Shipping Ministry and Great War . . 
 
 Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John, k.c, and Conscription 
 
 Sinn Fein coalition with Labour Party 
 
 Slavia, Southern, New State of 
 
 Socialism — 
 
 Coalition's resistance to . . 
 
 Labour Party's 
 
 Trade Unionist's . . 
 
 Wing of Labour Party . . 
 Soldiers. See Demobilisation. Disabled men. 
 Submarine campaign and Rationing system 
 Supreme Council 
 
 Swansea gives a Liberal Coalition vote 
 Sweden, Coalition adopted in 
 Syndicalism 
 
 Tariff Reform, Mr. Chamberlain and 
 Taxation of Wealth 
 Tory Party. See LTnionist Party. 
 Trade Unionism — 
 
 Socialism not general in . . 
 
 Wing of Labour Party . . 
 Transport Act and Railways 
 Treaty of Paris 
 Turkey — 
 
 And the Great War 
 
 Peace Treaty changes in 
 
 Settlement delayed 
 
 Ulster^ 
 
 Coalition policy towards 
 
 Home Rule conversion of 
 Unemployment . . 
 Unionist Party — 
 
 By-election poll of 
 
 Chamberlain, Mr. J., a great gain to . . 
 
 Influence on. . 
 
 Coalition has not violated principles of 
 
 Coalition Manifesto and . . 
 
 Coalitionism of . . 
 
 Conservative leaven in Coalition Government 
 
 Disraeli saves Conservative Party 
 
 General Election, 1918, and 
 
 Home Rule conversion of 
 
 Liberal Unionist coalition 
 
 Origins of . . 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 7 
 
 42 
 6 
 
 5 
 32 
 16 
 
 46 
 32 
 
 35 
 33-4 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 32 
 
 7 
 22 
 
 40. 43 
 46 
 
 35 
 
 33-4 
 
 22 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 16 
 18 
 
 20 
 46 
 23 
 
 31 
 42 
 43 
 
 25 
 
 12 
 
 35 
 
 28,45 
 
 40 
 
 31 
 21, 46 
 
 40 
 36
 
 56 
 
 Unionist Party — continued — 
 
 Trade Union wing of Labour Party and 
 
 What might have happened under a 
 Government 
 United States — 
 
 Party strife in 
 
 Peace Treaty and . . . . . . 
 
 Unity of Command, Mr. Asquith and 
 
 Vienna, Congress of . . 
 
 War, The Great — 
 
 Coalition principles won the 
 
 Coalition, 2nd, and Our faith in Victory 
 
 George, Mr. Lloyd, and National Unity 
 
 Half a world in ruins 
 
 Party controversy ended by 
 
 Peace in War and Wax in Peace 
 
 Russian anarchy prolongs 
 
 Unity of Command in .a 
 Wealth, Taxation of . . 
 Whigs — 
 
 19th century Liberal Party and 
 
 Pitt's quarrel with the . , 
 
 Undemocratic character of 
 Whitley Commissions . . 
 Wilson, President, and Peace Treaty 
 
 Conservative 
 
 PAGE 
 
 34 
 
 25 
 
 17, 18 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 6 
 4 
 15 
 4 
 6 
 
 7 
 5.6 
 
 46 
 
 38 
 37 
 3^7 
 23 
 10 
 
 Printed by Harrison &- Sons, Ltd., 44-47, St. Martin's Lane, W.C. 2.
 
 
 ^^i»i!.hiiiTYof CAUn>HJw
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Wis 1962 
 
 APR ^ REC'D 
 
 Form L9 — 15w-10,'48 (B1039)444 
 
 NIVEKSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT 
 LOS ANGELES 
 LIBRARY
 
 UCLA-Young Research Library 
 
 JN1121 1920 .P75p 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 J> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <-) 
 
 11 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 J
 
 f/ 
 
 
 '.-v