Saved Again

Fortnight ago, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, defeated in the House of Commons by a vote of 282 to 249, seemed to be clinging to his office by the tips of his long sensitive fingers. Another vote last week enabled him to scramble back to at least an elbow-hold on the Prime Ministry. Scot MacDonald dodged resigning fortnight ago because his defeat in Parliament "did not concern a vital issue." Conservatives, thirsting for his blood, vowed that they would defeat him on a vital issue, namely the Trades Union Disputes Bill.

The Trades Union Disputes Bill is an amendment to the act of 1927, which (in reaction to the general strike of 1926) declared any strike or lockout illegal if intended to coerce the Government or intimidate the community. This obviously might be interpreted to make any sympathetic strike illegal. The new bill, personally backed by Scot MacDonald, would make strikes illegal only when their "primary object" was to intimidate the community or coerce the Government.

Last week in the face of united Conservative opposition, frightened Labor whips conferred busily with Liberals, received a promise from Leader Lloyd George that he would exert his influence to prevent Liberals from voting on the bill at all. The bill came up. Eight Liberals led by Sir John Simon jumped the Lloyd George hedge and voted with the Conservatives, but Labor won, 277 to 250. Laborites ran wild, shook the rafters of the staid House of Commons with "Auld Lang Syne." Bitterly spoke Liberal Sir John Simon:

"Instead of being humanely slaughtered on the floor of the House the bill will now be killed by a thousand cuts in committee."

It possibly will, but Scot MacDonald did not mind. His government had been saved. The day before the fateful vote British newspaper readers were sharply reminded of what might be in store for them if Conservative Stanley Baldwin should return to power. Labor leaders let it be known that Stanley Baldwin's first move would be an imitation of Benito Mussolini--to cut the wages of all Government employes 10% as an example to the country, in the hope that lower wages would lower prices, stimulate trade. (Already employes of the great Midland Bank have received a 10% clip.)

Wayward Winnie. Most exciting political move of the week happened outside Parliament. The performer was moon-faced Winston ("Winnie") Churchill, one-time (1924-29) Chancellor of the Exchequer, No. 2 British Conservative, soldier, War correspondent and 100% Tory. Early in the week Stanley Baldwin had given grudging approval of Scot MacDonald's attempt to solve the Indian problem.

Up spoke wayward Winnie Churchill who has long sought to wrest leadership of the Conservative Party from Baldwin:

"This scheme is no solution and affords no prospect of solution. . . . The struggle will proceed steadily toward the severance of every tie between Britain and India. . . . This is the frightful prospect which the Government has thoughtlessly and recklessly opened in a short time."

Two days later wayward Winnie wrote a letter to phlegmatic Stanley, resigning from Baldwin's Conservative Committee, known to newswriters as the "Shadow Cabinet." Commented New York Times Correspondent Charles A. Selden:

"This resignation . . . means Mr. Churchill will not be in the real Cabinet when his party again gets control of the government. So it is apparently the end of a brilliant political career."

If such an open break should occur in a U. S. political party it almost certainly would mean at least a hiatus in the breaker's party career. If Governor Ritchie had broken with Alfred Emanuel Smith and the latter had been elected President in 1928, Mr. Ritchie would certainly not have been in the Smith Cabinet. But in Britain party organization is not so strong, individual leadership more important. It is no new thing for brilliant, erratic Winston Churchill to leave the Conservative fold. In 1906 he left to become a Liberal. In 1915 he left the Liberals. In 1917 he was a member of Lloyd George's Coalition Cabinet. Equally irregular as a party man was his father Lord Randolph Churchill. It is a well-recognized family failing.

Winnie Churchill today has a particular following which was not his 15 years ago. He has become the caustic, clever leader of the Tory diehards. Winston Churchill was a young army officer when Rudyard Kipling was writing about the Lord God of Hosts "beneath whose awful hand we hold dominion over palm and pine." Fervently as any of his generation has Winston Churchill believed in Great Britain's divine right to rule--by force. His grandfather was the 7th Duke of Marlborough, descendant of that first Duke of Marlborough of whose going to war French children still carol. He believes that it is not only dangerous but disgraceful to make any promises whatever to Indian Nationalist opinion. Those fire-eating Britons who believe with him turn to Tory Churchill as a leader. Having made his break with Baldwin last week he rushed to a Manchester platform, expounded his Indian philosophy.

"We ought to begin now," he shouted, "by making it perfectly clear that we intend to remain effective rulers in every essential for a very long, indefinite period. . . . We will have no truck with lawlessness or treason, and will if necessary, suspend even the most moderate constitutional changes while there is bad spirit abroad."

There are not enough Churchill Tories in Britain to win him an election on oratory alone, but it seemed more than likely that he would not lack for financial and press backing. Ever since Stanley Baldwin beat them so decisively on the question of a protective tariff (TIME, Nov. 10), the Press Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook have thirsted for revenge, hunted for a champion. Britons waited last week to see if Winston Churchill was to become that champion, whether the Rothermere- Beaverbrook-Churchill combination would be strong enough to unhorse plodding Leader Baldwin.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.