FOR WALES AND FOR ENGLAND
“No poor man can afford to be ignorant; leave that to the
rich.”—_Mr. Lloyd George at Hartley_ (1913).
MR. LLOYD GEORGE was not to remain idle long. In 1902 the Conservative
wing of the Unionist combination once again asserted itself. The war was
over. The Unionists found themselves with that great affair wound up and
the whole world before them. It was a tempting position. They were still
in supreme command of a Parliament which had five years to run. The
House of Lords was their obedient servant. They could practically pass
what Bills they liked. It was almost too much strain on human nature to
expect that they should not pass some of the Bills that they really
wanted.
True, there had been certain promises made during the General Election
of 1900 which were rather difficult to explain. Various Unionist leaders
had indiscreetly laid it down that that Election was for the war and the
war alone. But the Government seemed content to rely on the humane view
once put forward by an M.P. victorious through the strength of many
promises—that promises made in the heat of an Election do not really
count. So in 1902 they took the bit in their mouths and boldly brought
in a Bill throwing the Voluntary Schools on to the rates. It was the
very policy which had been openly declared impossible from the front
Conservative bench in 1896, and it was known to be extremely distasteful
to Mr. Chamberlain.
Mr. Lloyd George took a leading part in the parliamentary opposition to
this measure. He once more let “all out” as a guerilla fighter. There he
was always supreme. His knowledge of the law made him extraordinarily
resourceful in the invention and discovery of amendments; while he
displayed a skill equally astonishing as an agile draftsman. Night after
night he turned up fresh and smiling; always calm and moderate, serenely
persuasive, and, to his enemies, distressingly cool. It seemed an
outrage to speak of such a humane fighter as an obstructionist; and yet
there is no doubt that few of the most savage of that tribe succeeded so
well in delaying the progress of Bills.
Now, as in 1896, he became once more the heart and soul of the
Opposition. The Government found themselves compelled to accept a great
many of his amendments, and in this way very much weakened their Bill.
Mr. Balfour found him a shrewd and agile opponent worthy of his steel.
This time, of course, he was not fighting alone. He was supported with
the full power of the Front Opposition Bench, now ably led by Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman with Mr. Asquith as chief lieutenant. But Mr. Lloyd
George always contributed something peculiarly his own. To the heavy
thunder of the Front Bench guns he added the fret and jar of machine-gun
fire, galling the flanks of the Government forces, driving them from
their chosen positions, often annihilating their best offensives.
There is no doubt that his opposition to the Education Bill played an
effective part in weakening Mr. Balfour’s Government, and considerably
improved the new Act when it came to be applied to the schools of the
country.
But his real triumph came after the Bill had passed through Parliament.
On the main objection of principle to that measure he agreed with the
Nonconformists of England; but he did not see eye to eye with them in
the policy to be employed to resist the application of the Bill. He was
never a “Passive Resister.” The English problem, indeed, was different.
The English Nonconformists had no certain control of the English County
Councils. But in Wales Mr. Lloyd George had long ago ensured his hold
over those bodies, and he had deftly amended the Bill so that they
should have a decisive control over the administration of the Act.
He now laid before the County Councils of Wales a very ingenious scheme
of resistance, destined to be far more effective than the heroic but
vain martyrdoms of the English Nonconformists.
In January 1903 he issued to the people of Wales an Address embodying
his policy.[47] It was in appearance a law-abiding policy, with the
careful intention of avoiding any element of offence to legality. It was
ingeniously based on provisions introduced into the Bill in the course
of the long parliamentary fight.
It was laid down in the new Act, for instance, that all schools must be
passed as efficiently equipped before they received rate-aid from the
Councils. That was a provision already existing in regard to the
Parliamentary Grant; but always more honoured in the breach than in the
observance.
Mr. Lloyd George proposed that this provision of the law should be
carried out. He suggested that all schools should be inspected and
surveyed by the County Councils before rate-aid was contemplated; and
that only those which were passed should be capable of receiving it. Mr.
Lloyd George knew enough of the condition of these schools to be sure
that few would pass any honest scrutiny. But none could deny the
reasonableness of this request. “The sectarian schools,” he said in his
Address, “should be properly cleansed and clothed before they are
allowed to associate on equal terms with more decently clad
institutions.” It seemed a fair and proper condition.
That was the first stage. The second was that rate aid was then to be
given only to those schools that would accept genuine public control by
the Councils and would suspend religious tests for teachers. Otherwise,
nothing was to be handed to the schools except the Parliamentary Grants.
Meanwhile, it was characteristic of Mr. Lloyd George that it was part of
his policy always to hold out the olive branch as an alternative to the
sword. He suggested to the Councils that rate-aid should be given to any
schools where the managers would accept the plan of “facilities” for
sectarian teaching on colonial lines—the sects, that is to say, to
teach after school hours. This was a plan which had always attracted
him. It seemed to him to combine equity with the least possible
interference with education. It was the part of his proposals which
roused least enthusiasm in Wales on either side.
But, though fighting fiercely, he never at any moment gave up the hope
of peace. All through the hottest moments of this strife, through
1903-4-5, he kept the door open for a settlement. He struck up a
remarkable friendship with that large-hearted man, Dr. Edwards, the
Bishop of St. Asaph,[48] and largely through the efforts of these two
there were frequent meetings and conferences—at Llandrindod and in
London—but all to no effect. It always happened that just when peace
seemed in sight the quarrel broke out afresh. The real fact was, of
course, that the two sides never desired the same object or meant the
same things.
“My advice is—let us capture the enemy’s artillery and turn his guns
against him.” That was the heart of Mr. Lloyd George’s policy of
resistance to the new Act. His idea was to defeat the spirit of the Act
by obeying the letter.
It was no easy task to swing Wales into line on this policy. Some
authorities wanted to go further and defy the Act altogether. Some—a
very few—wanted to carry it out. Many individuals craved for the prison
martyrdom of the English Nonconformists. There is fascination as well as
courage in suffering for a cause.
But Mr. Lloyd George preached his doctrine north and south, east and
west. In the spring of 1904 the triennial election for the County
Councils was due. His advice was—to make this policy the test of those
elections. If the electors decided in his favour, well and good—if not,
then they must bow to democratic control and carry out the Act. At no
point did he encourage the idea of personal individual resistance.
The elections came; and the results surpassed his most sanguine
expectations. In every one of the twenty-eight counties the supporters
of his “no rate” policy were returned with a strong majority. In many
cases the supporters of the Act had been almost annihilated. In
Carnarvonshire itself they were reduced to a minority of six. In
Merionethshire there were fifty-two supporters of Mr. Lloyd George’s
policy as against three opponents. Even in Brecon, where the Church was
at its strongest, thirty-nine members out of sixty were in favour of his
policy.
Such were the events which completely paralysed the exaction of the new
Voluntary Rate throughout Wales.
The Government decided to coerce Wales. In April 1904 they brought
forward a measure called the Defaulting Authorities Bill, but instantly
nicknamed the Welsh Coercion Bill. This Bill provided that, where a
Welsh County Council refused rate-aid to a Voluntary School, the
Treasury should have the right to pay the money direct to the Church
Schools. They were to deduct it from the Parliamentary Grant, thus
compelling the County Councils to make up out of the rates the loss to
their own “provided” schools.
It was an ingenious proposal; but it reckoned without the spirit of
Wales under the leadership of Mr. Lloyd George.
The Bill did not pass through the House until the close of the Session
of 1904. The “Kangaroo” Closure was called for by Mr. Balfour and
granted by Mr. Lowther from the Chair. There was a scene of passion.
Once more (as in 1896) Mr. Lloyd George refused to leave the House. Mr.
Lowther brought to bear that invincible good-humour of his, and Mr.
Asquith suggested another and a better way. In the result, the whole
Liberal Party, headed by Mr. Asquith, accompanied Mr. Lloyd George and
his Welshmen in a solemn exodus from the House. Such incidents were not
likely to make Wales more conciliatory.
In October Mr. Lloyd George definitely raised the flag of defiance
against this Coercion Act.
He persuaded a gathering of 600 representatives of Education
Authorities, assembled at Cardiff, to agree on a refusal to surrender.
In the memorable speech he made on this occasion he carried the war into
the enemy’s country. He accused these law-makers of lawlessness on their
side. He pointed out to them that for years the Board of Education had
broken the law on behalf of Voluntary Schools. They had not enforced the
efficiency imposed by law. “They broke the law in order not to levy a
rate.” Very well. Wales would not levy a rate until the law was obeyed.
That was their position. He boldly maintained that the law was on the
side of Wales; and thus most wisely did he avoid that perilous
identification of his policy with the idea and habit of lawlessness
which has needlessly injured so many good causes.
He defied coercion. If the Defaulting Act were enforced and the rate-aid
deducted from the Parliamentary Grant, he boldly advised that the Welsh
Councils should close their schools. It would be a better thing that the
children should be brought up to reverence freedom of conscience than
that they should learn even the three R’s. Besides, they could provide
buildings where they could teach them that freedom of conscience was a
greater thing even than knowledge.
Once more, courage won the day. It was not going to be an easy thing to
dispute Mr. Lloyd George’s reading of the law in those High Courts which
know nothing of politics. Only a very few Welsh Authorities got out of
hand, and, going ahead of Mr. Lloyd George’s astute advice, rendered
themselves liable to prosecution.[49]
But even then the Government did not venture to act. They had not enough
public opinion behind them. From 1904 to 1906 there was no moment in the
history of that divided, tempest-tossed Government when they could
safely have entered upon a strife so perilous and so doubtful. So Mr.
Lloyd George was left in Wales still unassailed and triumphant until the
General Election of 1906 swept away the Government and practically
killed the Coercion Act.
Meanwhile, during those years David Lloyd George had been all the time
steadily adding to his reputation as a speaker and debater both in the
House of Commons and in the country. There, after all, we always come
back to his supreme political weapon—the power of public speech. Born
in those village debates within the bootmaker’s shop and the smithy at
Llanystumdwy, that power had been sharpened and developed on the village
greens and in the town halls of Wales, trained to finer uses on the
public platforms of England, and quickened by the quick thrust and parry
in parliamentary debate. It had passed through the fire of stern combat
during the South African struggle, and now it had emerged in swift, keen
sword of combat, at once supple and strong.
That weapon he had used in all the great parliamentary fights of those
years, when Mr. Balfour was carrying on, like the great Arthur of old,
the last great combat for that pleasant, serene, feudal England which
was already so sorely wounded by the hunters.
Feudalism seemed to win for the time. The Bills became Acts of
Parliament—the Schools Bill, even the Licensing Bill. Mr. Balfour,
himself a supreme master of the parliamentary arts, seemed to survive.
But all the time David Lloyd George was inflicting mortal wounds, until
at last, like the old defeated royalist in the Civil Wars, Mr. Arthur
Balfour gracefully yielded his sword. He was actually the first, in that
generous way of his, who recommended to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman
that, in whatever Cabinet he might be called upon to form, Mr. Lloyd
George must in any case be a Minister.
It was in 1903 that a great diversion occurred in the development of
this drama. Striking across the orbit of both the great political
parties, with some of the strength and ruthlessness of his old Radical
days, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain put forward his famous Tariff Reform
proposals.
One of the first results of that event was to divert all political
energy for the moment from Bills to debate. Both in Parliament and on
the platform from 1903 to 1906 the energies of public men were mainly
absorbed in that great titanic controversy—so absorbing to the British
mind—between Free Trade and Protection.
Mr. Lloyd George shared this diversion with all the others. He was
called from progressive tasks to the essentially conservative business
of defending the existing economic order. He did it well. He proved
himself a faithful Free Trader. But this was not principally and
specifically his especial task. In this field Mr. Asquith took the lead,
and Mr. Lloyd George was always his faithful “junior.”
But Mr. Lloyd George’s defence of Free Trade soon began to develop a
character of its own. His tactics gradually began to take on a note of
attack. His defensive became an aggressive.
He had recognised, from the opening of the struggle, that the strength
of Mr. Chamberlain’s case lay in his frank recognition of the grim,
shameful facts that lay beneath the smooth surface of English life. He
realised that Mr. Chamberlain was the first great statesman to recognise
fearlessly the existence of that England which so few statesmen had yet
recognised—the England of the poor. Mr. Chamberlain, in fact, had
brought “Darkest England” into the political landscape.
As the campaign went on Mr. Chamberlain grew bolder and bolder along
these lines. He contended that tariffs, and tariffs alone, would provide
the money for Old Age Pensions. He hinted at even vaster boons which
were coming to England if she would only turn her back on that sour and
pinchbeck old lady—Free Trade.
Mr. Lloyd George perceived at once the danger of this attack. He, at any
rate, knew the “deep sighing of the poor.” He realised the black abyss
which lay below the surface of England’s wealth. He feared the appeal to
the hungry mouths of our neglected masses.
From that day forward he set out to prove that Free Trade also could
remedy poverty—aye! and remedy it all the more easily because it
brought wealth in its train. The great need was that that wealth should
bear its due burden. That was to be his cure for the trouble.
At that time his phrasing was large and general. He had not yet worked
out his later plans. Earlier he had served on the Rothschild Pensions
Committee, and he had thrown all his energies into that inquiry. He was
ever studying the problems of the land. But he kept a mind open to
details. In that year (1904-5) he was storing impulse and collecting
knowledge, preparing for the great moment that lay ahead of him.
That moment was now to come.
In December 1905 Mr. Balfour resigned, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman
immediately undertook to form a Ministry.
It was already clear that Mr. Lloyd George must be a member of the new
Cabinet. Sir Henry offered him the Presidency of the Board of Trade, and
he accepted it. To the public the appointment came as a surprise. It
seemed the last post for that brilliant parliamentary free-lance, that
gay leader of forlorn hopes.
They were to find that, behind that flashing exterior, there was a
cooler personality, well fitted for the control of the calmer and
shrewder side of our national life.
-----
[47] “Address to the people of Wales,” January 17th, 1903.
[48] Cousin of Sir Frank Edwards, M.P., one of the most faithful of the
Welsh Nationalists, but himself an Anglican.
[49] Carnarvonshire and Merionethshire.