New-York tribune., 1913-11-23

| HlHs MS pIlHClpleS ONerDOdrU. Al tlc
back of his mind he was financially, as
conservative as ever, but. for reasons
of political expediency, he allowed a
colleague, subordinate to force upon
the Government proposals Of finance
that were hateful TO him. proposals
which he believed dangerous and preg-
nant with mischief: as they have
proved. There has been no more mel
| career
His friends plead for him that he
had no choice; that Mr.. George was
too strong to be coerced. II may be so.
II remains none the less true that Mr..
Asquith could have resigned. Again it
was an opti"n Lotween ambition on one
| side and an obligation Of honor on the
other; and 1t was not the obligation of
honor which seemed TO him imperative
l may as well relate here the anec-
dote current about that time, or per-
| haps a little later. which brings the
relative positions Of the two men into
clear relief. On a point of policy Mr..
Asquith intimated to Mr.. Lloyd George
that in a recent speech he had spoken
as for the Ministry and committed, or
| sought to commit. the Government to a
purpose which was not the Prime Min
ister's nor the Cabinets. Mr.. Lloyd
George struck back instantly. He
! said
Mr.. Prime Minister, II that is meant
as a rebuke do not accept It, II you
wish me to resign l will resign, but l
give you fair notice that IL go take
200 members Of your majority with
me-"
It is probable enough that Mr.. Lloyd
George could have taken with him, IL
not 200 members, more than members
enough to shatter the Prime Minister'S
party and drive him into exile. Again
the Prime Minister yielded. That he
felt the humiliation may be believed.
But how often Is II true that beneath
the external splendor of success lie
deep such griefs. such sings and arrows
Of outrageous fortune. such private
distresses and notifications as those
which have been Mr.. Asquith's The
ruler of four hundred millions of peo-
pie, and the ruled Of Mr.. Lloyd George
and Mr.. Redmond.
I cannot follow all these processes
step by step. I must content myself
with touching on such matters as are
vital, and those only in outline. / wish
at most to put in the hands of my read
ers material for judging what Mr..
Asquith's claim is TO the title Of states
man, and whether his leadership has
been TO the profit or loss OF his coun-
try. Nobody now denies that he has
In him, or had In him, the capacity for
party leadership and for useful Minis
terial work. He is better party leader
than was Mr.. Gladstone; who. at criti-
cal moments, took ethical views or
party tactics. If that be a mistake II
is one Mr.. Asquith has not committed.
IL | compare him with Mr.. Gladstone
1t is not for purposes Of compliment.
There are more points of similarity be-
tween Lord Beaconsfield and the pres
ent First Minister of the Crown than
between him and Mr. Gladstone. But
Mr.. Asquith stands in the strict hhs
of political descent from Mr.. Gladstone;
and with him if with anybody he must
be measured.
A comparison does not imply equal
ity. 1t does not even imply a parallel
1t has been said successfully OF Sr
Robert Peel, Of Lord Beaconsfield and
of Mr.. Gladstone that he was the
greatest member Of Parliament VINO
ever lived. Into that Trinity Mr.. AS
auth can hardly claim admission
though IL you consider him merely as
Parliamentarian he comes near TO any
one of the three; or would If he had
stood VIGOROUSLY in line OF battle
against such opponents as theirs. He
is in the front rank, not OF orators, but
of debaters. Each Of those three great
men created for himself the atmos-
phere in which he moved. To no such
height Of genius as that does Mr.. AS
auth rise. He is purely and simply
House of Commons man. In the imag-
NATIVE conduct of debate Mr.. Balfour
is his superior. But in precision OF
statement nobody is his superior when
he wishes to be clear; nor In the subtle
ties Of diplomatic speech when clear
ness is inconvenient. OF all Parlia-
mentary procedure he Is master; both
in generalities and in detail. He is
man who in both these respects has
grown. / can remember Mr.. Asquith
when his speaking, whether on plat
form or from the Front Bench, was
academic and ineffective.
When Sir II. Campbell Zimmerman
passed away Mr. Asquith was thought
to be his inevitable successor, since
among all his colleagues he had
no rival in purely intellectual power,
but he was distrusted both as tactician
and leader; and these are now the two
points in which he is supreme. In his
Cabinet his ascendancy has been intel
lectual. His defects were defects or
character and of courage. To win or
lose IL all was never his motto. He
temporized and man9uvred. He had
instincts of statesmanship which he
would not sacrifice to mere party exi-