ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.
THE INCOHERENTS.
The reply of the Soviet Government to the Spa Conference was described by Mr. Lloyd George as "incoherent; the sort of document that might be drawn up by a committee composed of Colonel Wedgwood, Commander Kenworthy, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Thomas." It is understood that these hon. Members intend to hold an indignation meeting to discuss means—if any—of refuting this charge.
Monday, July 19th.—Opinions may differ as to the wisdom of the Peers in reopening the Dyer case, but the large audience which assembled in the galleries, where Peeresses and Indians vied with one another in the gorgeousness of their attire, testified to the public interest in the debate. At first the speakers made no attempt to "hot up" their cold porridge. In presenting General Dyer's case Lord Finlay was strong without rage. In rebutting it the Under-Secretary for India proved himself a grave and reverend Sinha, without a trace of the provocativeness displayed by his Chief in the Commons. Not until the Lord Chancellor intervened did the temperature begin to rise. His description of the incident in the Jullianwallah Bagh was only a little less lurid than that of Mr. Montagu. The Peers would, I think, have liked a little more explanation of how an officer who admittedly exhibited, both before and after this painful affair, "discretion, sobriety and resolution," should be regarded as having on this one day committed "a tragic error of judgment upon the most conspicuous stage," and may have wondered whether, if the stage had been less conspicuous, the critics would have been more lenient.
AN ARABIAN KNIGHT AT HOME. Lord Winterton.
For as long as I can remember the French have been partant pour la Syrie. Now they have got there, with a mandate from the Supreme Council, and have come into collision with the Arabs. As we are the friends of both parties the situation is a little awkward. Mr. Ormsby-Gore hoped we were not going to fight our Arab allies, and was supported by Lord Winterton, who saw service with them during the War. A diplomatic speech by Mr. Bonar Law, who pointed out that the French were in Syria on just the same conditions as we were in Mesopotamia, helped to keep the debate within safe limits.
Tuesday, July 20th.—The Lords continued the Dyer debate. Lord Milner confessed that he had approached the subject "with a bias in favour of the soldier," and showed how completely he had overcome it by finally talking about "Prussian methods"—a phrase that Lord Sumner characterised as "facile but not convincing." Lord Curzon hoped that the Peers would not endorse such methods, but would be guided by the example of "Clemency" Canning. The Lords however, by 129 to 86, passed Lord Finlay's motion, to the effect that General Dyer had been unjustly treated and that a dangerous precedent had been established.
The First Commissioner of Works was inundated with questions about the pylon and explained that it had been designed by Sir Frank Baines entirely on his own initiative. Its submission to the Cabinet had never been contemplated, and its exhibition in the Tea Room was due to an hon. Member, who said that a number of people would be interested. Apparently they were.
Asked if the scheme might be regarded as quite dead, Sir Alfred Mond replied that he certainly thought so. In fact, to judge by his previous answer, it was never really alive.
There is still anxious curiosity regarding the increase of railway fares, but when invited to "name the day" Mr. Bonar Law remained coy. Suggestions for postponements in the interests of this or that class of holiday-maker finally goaded him into asking sarcastically, "Why not until after Christmas?" Whereupon the House loudly cheered.
Wednesday, July 21st.—Tactful man, Lord Desborough. In urging the Government to call a Conference to consider the establishment of a fixed date for Easter he supported his case with a wealth of curious information, some of it acquired from the Prayer-book tables, as he said, "during the less interesting sermons to which I have listened." You or I would have said "dull" tout court, and in that case we should not have deserved to receive, as Lord Desborough did, the almost enthusiastic support of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
In spite of this Lord Onslow, for the Government, was far from encouraging. He quite recognised the drawbacks of the movable Easter, and agreed that it was primarily a matter for the Churches. But he feared the Nonconformists might dissent, and displayed a hitherto unsuspected reverence for the opinion of the Armenians. Besides, what about the Dominions and Labour? And with Europe in such a state of unrest ought we to throw in a new apple of discord? With much regret the Government could not see their way, etc. Whereupon Lord Desborough, who seems to be easily satisfied, expressed his gratitude and withdrew his motion.
In an expansive moment Mr. Montagu once referred to Mr. Gandhi as his "friend." He did so, it appears, in the hope that the eminent agitator would abandon his disloyal vapourings. But the friendship is now finally sundered. Mr. Gandhi has been endeavouring to organise a boycott of the Prince of Wales' visit to India, and, as Mr. Montagu observed more in sorrow than in anger, "Nobody who suggests disloyalty or discourtesy to the Crown can be a friend of any Member of this House, let alone a Minister."
If anyone were to take exception to the accuracy of some of the Prime Minister's historical allusions in his post-Spa oration he would doubtless reply, "I don't read history; I make it." He was tart with the Turks, gratulatory to the Greeks, peevish with the Poles and gentle to the Germans. The German Chancellor and Herr von Simons were described as "two perfectly honest upright men, doing their best to cope with a gigantic task." Their country was making a real effort to meet the indemnity; it was not entirely responsible for the delay in trying the war-criminals, and even in the matter of disarmament was not altogether blameworthy. The Bolshevists also were handled more tenderly than usual. Their reply was "incoherent" rather than "impertinent"—it might have been drawn up by a Wedgwood-Kenworthy-Cecil-Bottomley-Thomas syndicate. Still they must not be allowed to wipe out Poland, foolish and reckless as the Poles had been.
A well-informed speech was made by Mr. T. Shaw, evidently destined to be the Foreign Minister of the first Labour Cabinet. Having travelled in Russia he has acquired a distaste for the Soviet system, both political and industrial, and is confident that no amount of Bolshevist propaganda will induce the British proletarian to embrace a creed under which he would be compelled to work.
Thursday, July. 22nd.—The Peers held an academic discussion on the League of Nations. Lords Parmoor, Bryce and Haldane, who declared themselves its friends, were about as cheerful as Job's Comforters; Lord Sydenham was frankly sceptical of the success of a body that had, and could have, no effective force behind it; and Lord Curzon was chiefly concerned to dispel the prevalent delusion that the League is a branch of the British Foreign Office.
The Commons had an equally unappetising bill-of-fare, in which Ireland figured appropriately as the pièce de résistance. Sir John Rees' well-meant endeavour to furnish some lighter refreshment by an allusion to the Nauru islanders' habit of "broiling their brothers for breakfast" fell a little flat. The latest news from Belfast suggests that in the expression of brotherly love Queen's Island has little to learn from Nauru.