New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-08-22
Parliament in War
WHY MR. AsQUTH CONTENT CONTROL HOUSE OF COM
MONS AND NATION CRIES IN VAIN FOR NATIONAL


Georse W. Smalley)
For on all but the very greatest qucs-
tons the Lords could still give him
much trouble in getting his bills
through thai body. Mr.. Asquith's
sense of political strategy il acute, and
il would be like him to bring the Lords
into line and under his sway by i'm
pounding their leaders in his Ministry.
Until the other day his scheme. # 1t
really was his scheme. answered very
well. The refusal 20 pass the Pensions
Bill was their first act Of independence
since the war began. Patriotism quoted
that spirit as il quoted many others
Ministers Who Count.
The colleagues of the Prime Minister
in the House of Commons who really
count are all Liberals; all members of
his old Ministry; all party men. They
are Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Minister;
Mr.. Lloyd George. Minister of NUM-
tions. and Mr. McKenna as Chancellor
of the EXchequer, l was wrong when
| spoke of Mr. McKenna as merely
caretaker at the EXchequer. He has
proved himself & capable Minister of
Finance. and his speech on moving the
War Loan Bill won him the confidence
OF the House and the City and the
country His dreary failure as Home
Secretary is already almost forgotten.
1t is not nor is ever likely TO be a
homogeneous Government. II is a Coali-
ton; not Union and on neither side
has the spirit of party been exercised;
and to Union the spirit of party is
fatal.
Unionist Ministers.
Besides the three Ministers whom
L. H.
count, there are others whose devotion
and capacity are beyond question.
am speaking only of Ministers who were
in the late Government also, and are
members of the House of Commons.
But such Unionists rs Mr.. Balfour, Mr..
Ronar Law. Mr.. Austen Chamberlain.
all leaders in their own party, do they
really count in the present Cabinet
And when il comes to deciding on a
great issue, does anybody really count
except the Prime Minister? | ask the
question. leave it TO others to answer.
But let us look at what has happened
this week in the House Of Commons.
Mr.. Asquith's Autocracy.
Sir Arthur Markham on Wednesday
asked whether it is really necessary to
pay three sets of Whips, seeing that
the House of Commons will do exactly
what the Prime Minister wants it 10 do.
Mr. Asquith answered modestly that he
feared this was an unduly sanguine
view. But it is not. II is the literal
truth, and yesterday proved it over
again for the hundredth time. Mr.. As
quith carried without a division his
proposal for a six weeks adjournment,
till September IA.
Vain Protest Against 1t.
The feeling against it was strong on
both sides. Sir Henry Dalziel, an eX-
treme Radical, was at one with Sir
Henry Craik, Scottish and scholarly
Unionist. One moved and the other
supported an amendment limiting the
duration of the proposed adjournment.
They would have done better to attack
the idea of adjourning. They gave
abundant reasons of national welfare
why Parliament ought to be conBnu-
ously in session at such crisis as this.
Mr. Handel Booth, a Red Radical, and
Mr. Amery, a fighting Conservative,
pressed the point in much the same
spirit. Captain Guest, once in the Lib
eral Government, and Mr.. WedgwoOd,
once a leader Of the Back Bench faction,
agreed in demanding a Ministerial dec
laration on compulsory service. They
are both lately from the trenches. They
agreed that at any moment action by
Parliament might be vital to the safety
of the Kingdom.
Plainly the House was impressed by
these statements. Plainly it recognized
the danger But of all danger or pos
sible need Of action by Parliament dur
ing this period of danger the Prime
Minister made light. He knew that he
had the House in hand. He knew hat
a majority would vote for whatever he
demanded. He rejected every sugges-
ton for amendment; and since even
members who moved amendments knew
it also, Mr.. Asquith in the end carried
his motion without a division. Not a
vote was recorded against him. The
House bent to his will, and till the
14th of September the Government has
q free hand, and is free from the criti-
cism il breads.
Could there be a more crushing proof
of the Prime Minister'S ascendancy?
His ascendancy is an autocracy. II ne
would assert his authority over the
country as he asserts it over Parlia-
ment, no more could be asked; pro-
vided it was done for different end.
But he chooses that his leadership
should begin and end with Parliam ant.
That the present Ministry as a whole
is patriotic, devoted, perfectly Loyal, is
certain. 1t is, however, equally certain
that it still needs an infusion Of
strength; of strong men; of men with
the gift of leadership other than Par
liamentary, and capacity for business.
If there are no such men In Parliament
there are many such outside of Pa-lla-
ment. But | suppose 1T is hopeless 10
expect reinforcement from beyond
the sacred precincts of St. stephens
G.. w. s.