The Washington herald., 1917-03-25
Welshman Overtlirns Government S system of
Centuries and Throws Cumbersome
Cabinet Into Scrap Heap.
GREAT GAIN IN EFFICIENCY
Premier Believes British Will Make Any Sacrifices
to Win War, and Results Bear Him Out
BY JOHN L. BALDERsToN.
Copyright, 1917. By the Mcclure Newspaper
s6ndieatal

AOAdOus 14dI O-1 ne
tcal revolution wrought in England two
months ago has resulted in a situation
which the whole world would be watching
eagerly in normal times. It Is too soon
to predict the result OF the abolition by
David Lloyd George Of the century-old
system of a cabinet governing the coun-
try under the control Of Parliament. But
q description of the character and the
wurking of the new machine set in mo-
ton by the energetic Welshman can
now be given
From the time when the English COM
mons wrested the supreme power away
from the King to the close Of the admin
istration Of H. H Asquith the country
has been ruled by a cabinet, varying IN
size. composed of the prime minister and
the heads Of the great government de-
partments- These men met frequently.
discussed the views and aims Of their
departments, and adopted under a pledge
or absolute secrecy. a common policy. for
which each member OF the cabinet was
responsible. and which was placed before
the house of commons, for its approval
or disapproval. as the policy Of the gov
ernment II the house disapproved. the
government resigned and a general cleo
ton resulted
EIghty-two Ministers Now.
So England governed itself since the
eighteenth century until Lloyd George,
with an overwhelming weight of public
opinion behind him, decided that the old
methods would not win the war. Backed
by an organized press campaign, he GUST
ed Asquith and formed a political sys-
TEN overnight, scrapping the most cher
ished political ideals of his countrymen
with almost no opposition at all
England is now in the hands Of So
called War Cabinet" This body con-
sists Of Premier Lloyd George himself;
the UniOnist leader, Bonar Law; Lords
Curzon and Milner. and Arthur Hender-
son, ministeg of labor. But this cabinet
Ill the constitutional sense of the word,
is not a cabinet at all, for it does not
include the foreign secretary, the war
minister the first lord of the admiralty,
or the heads Of other governments hith-
ertO accorded a voice in the government
Under Asquith there were twenty-five
other cabinet ministers. and great was
the OutCry against the "twenty-three"
whose inGe Cision and blunders were pop
ularly ascribed to the inability of such
a large group to formulate and carry
cut vigorous policy. Government by
debating society" the Asquith coalition
was called.
Entire system Changed.
But under LIoyd-George and his four
the complexity and bulk of which put all
others in the shade. There are today
thirty-four full-fledged ministers of the
crown, and counting the under-secretaries
who also rank as members of the govern
ment, the total number of ministers Is
eighty-two. Each of these men has the
right to sit on the Treasury bench, the
famous first bench to the right Of the
speakers dais in the House of Com
mons, sacred from time immemorial to
the government of the day. But If each
member Of the Lloyd-George government
attended a session of the house, not only
the treasury bench but the two benches
behind it would be filled. Opponents of
Lloyd-George point out that his govern
ment now contains twice a quorum of the
House of Commons, and suggest that If
he desires to keep his job forever he has
only to appoint another hundred or two
ministers from among the members.
Power Is Limited.
But the difference between the As-
quith regime and the new one is that
these minister of today have no share
of the supreme power. They are ex-
pected to run their own department
as best they can. but their decisions
are liable to be overruled by the war
cabinet or the "Secretariat," described
below, and they have no share in
determining the policy Of the govern
ment as a whole.
When the new government was
formed it was announced that the
supreme directorate would meet in
daily session to direct the war, leav-
ing departmental work to. BaIfour at
the foreign office. Carsonat the ad-
miralty, Lord Derby at the war Office,
and the other lesser luminaries among
the eighty-two. The war cabinet has
been in regular session, excepting dur
ing Mr.. Lloyd Georges absence in
Rome, but as close observers antici-
pated from the start 1t has not been
run on cabinet principles. 1t has more
and more been resolving itself into
Lloyd George and his supporters and
advisers, rather than a deliberative
body of equals.
How 1t Works Out.
What has happened can be shown by
q consideration of the personnel of the
war cabinet. Lord Miner, after a trip
to Rome with mis- chief, went to Petro-
grad on a lengthy mission last month,
and is still in Russia. Both the inter-
allied conferences he attended were of
eNtreme importance to the war, but dur
ing most Of the life of the war cabinet
in Downing street he has not been pies
ent at its deliberations.
LOrQ CurZOn married and went on
short honeymoon. He IL now back at
work. Henderson, the Labor member,
has done much for the workingman, and
is doubtless most powerful when meas
ures affecting labor are being considered,
but his lack of political experience and
position as the representative of a single
class are generally thought to prevent
him from taking a leading part in prob
lens OF world policy and government
which do not Immediately affect his own
political interests. There remains, be-
sides the prime minister. the chancellor
of the exchequer, Bonar Law.
When the new government was form
ed, it was announced that Bonar Law
would act as leader Of the House Of
Commons, as well as chancellor Of the
exchequer. and that he would not regu-
larry attend the war cabinet
Has Too Many Duties.
The terms Of the announcement. and
the course of events since. seem to in
dicate that Bonar Law can hardly take
quite the part in the supreme control that
his colleagues have assumed. His con-
tinual presence in the House Of Commons
and his arduous labors at the Treasury
would, indeed, MAKE II impossible for
him to do so. No act Of Lloyd George
has aroused as much opposition In par
lament as his deleRation of hia histori-