• U.S.

Foreign News: Stocktaking

7 minute read
TIME

Commonwealth (British Commonwealth of Nations)

(See front cover)

As the year closes, what cabinet of a great Power is so sharply criticised as that of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin? During the past twelvemonth it has broken with Russia, declined to agree with the U. S. on naval limitation, neglected to deal with the desperate British coal situation, and once more rebuffed the expressed desire of Continental nations to gird the League with strength to enforce international settlements. Even should each of these doubtful acts be adjudged sound, their sum total remains negative and barren. Talk rumbles in England that a change at the helm of State is overdue. As the New Year looms, it is pertinent to re-examine Stanley Baldwin. Policies. The Prime Minister’s policies are that he is honest, broadly disinterested, hugely naive, and means well. To paint another man in such broad, flat colors would be to paint him out; but it is from the spaciousness of Mr. Baldwin’s qualities that he draws his surprising strength.

Because he is honest and steady-going, no one is alarmed by the brilliant budget jugglery of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill (TIME, April 18). Because Mr. Baldwin is disinterested and kindly, even coal miners have qualms about believing that his predilection for industrial laissez faire shows him up upon the mine owners side.

Finally, the Empire’s settled conviction that Stanley Baldwin always means well is as a pillar of potency to the members of his Cabinet. It enabled Home Secretary Sir William (“Jix”) Joynson-Hicks to bring off in triumph the safe-blowing raid by Scotland Yard on Soviet trade headquarters in London (TIME, May 23), even though Sir William later admitted that the police did not find the “stolen State papers” which they were supposed to be seeking. At present, the Secretary of State for India, the Earl of Birkenhead, is drawing heavily on Mr. Baldwin’s impeccable moral credit in the matter of a commission which will go to India next year and report upon what elements of greater freedom should be extended to Indians. When the Earl of Birkenhead himself tried to explain why not one single Indian will sit on this commission his logic lacked conviction; but Mr. Baldwin turned the trick emotionally with two spacious sentences. “Let Indians dismiss any imputation of inferiority,” said he. “They will be approached as friends and equals.”

Such simple, transparently sincere assertions have power. They are perhaps remotely akin to the Divine assurance: “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.” (JOHN 14:2).

Career. Although Stanley Baldwin’s unique strength and value as Prime Minister are thus demonstrable, there remains the mystery of how he reached high office almost at a single bound. When he was first chosen Prime Minister in 1923, the New Statesman exclaimed: “Not half the electors of Great Britain, we suppose, had ever heard his name until this week. . . .”

Born in 1867, Stanley Baldwin did not so much as enter Parliament until 1908—when he was 40. His first 21 years of life were spent in polite schooling, topped by Harrow and Cambridge. Then came 20 years of partnership with his father in the management of Baldwin’s Ltd.— a great iron founding property. During this period he fancied himself a businessman, and worked—he has said—”from early morn till late at night.” But Baldwin’s Ltd. is an old-school “family firm” and its owners should be thought of not as men of business but as industrial squires—and country squires at that. Thus it comes about that Mr. Baldwin can say, that, apart from business and politics, his chief desires are three: “to read the books I want; to live a decent life; and to keep pigs.” That pig-keeping is not inconsistent with sound business leadership is shown by the steady expansion and present prosperity of Baldwin’s Ltd. In 1908 Stanley Baldwin’s father died, after having held during the last 16 years of his life a seat in Parliament from a “family constituency.” Naturally the son soon filled the father’s seat. Followed eight years of political mediocrity, and then the late Andrew Bonar Law “noticed” Mr. Baldwin and made him his parliamentary private secretary* (1916). Between them a momentous friendship ripened. Came the fall of 1922. In the Coalition Cabinet of David Lloyd George—then tottering—Stanley Baldwin had reached the unobtrusive eminence of President of the Board of Trade. Shortly the Coalition fell, as the rank and file of Conservative M. P.’s decided they could no longer stomach Liberal Lloyd George and bolted from him. Left stranded were not only Mr. Lloyd George but several most prominent Conservatives who had held office under him. Not so stranded were Conservatives Bonar Law and Stanley Baldwin, who had bolted with the herd—nay helped to stampede it. They were thus outstanding in a newly resurgent Conservative party. Bonar Law became Prime Minister, with Stanley Baldwin promoted to high cabinet rank as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Shortly after (Jan. 1923) Chancellor Baldwin came to the U. S. and negotiated the funding of the British War Debt. His sturdy stand that “Britain pays what she owes” touched and fired his countrymen to conviction that his principles are sterling. Events quick-stepped. Prime Minister Bonar Law collapsed in health, resigned. His great & good disciple, Stanley Baldwin then eased logically into the Premiership (May 1923). Times, however, were troublous and lean. British voters soon turned out the first Baldwin Cabinet (Jan. 1924) that they might try as an experiment the first and only Labor Cabinet, under James Ramsay MacDonald. Finally came the great reaction to Conservatism of Oct. 1924; and Stanley Baldwin was swept back into his present tenure of power. Last year his Cabinet so outgeneraled the “General Strike” (TIME, May 10-24, 1926) that British trade unionism squandered its resources on one huge, misguided demonstration and is now very nearly prostrate with exhaustion. Thus an emaciated industrial Peace perches on the prow of Skipper Baldwin’s Ship of State, and everyone knows that at the helm rides a plump nymph called Sterling—now higher on international exchange (TIME, Dec. 19) than at any time since shortly after the beginning of the World War. Meanwhile, as the good ship sails on, tempests are brewing for the next election, which must come not later than 1929. A Liberal cloud, once “no bigger than a man’s hand,” is swelling notably puffed by the “Hearst of England,” Lord Rothermere, who recently shifted his always opportunist support from Stanley Baldwin to David Lloyd George (TIME, Nov. 7). Since Labor is not likely to emerge weakened from the coming conflict, a Liberal resurgence would slash deep into the Conservative majority. Before such a slash is attempted, Stanley Baldwin, most negative of British Prime Ministers, must toughen the resistance of his party by displaying positive, constructive leadership.

Family. Of the four daughters and two sons of Stanley Baldwin, one daughter, one son are famed. Miss Betty Baldwin, a hearty bouncing young woman, frequently electioneers for Conservative M. P.’s. Her brother Oliver Baldwin is, per contra, the family political throwback, a Socialist-intellectual. Hilarious was the contest for the Parliamentary seat from Smethwick (TIME, Dec. 27, 1926), wherein Betty Baldwin electioneered for the Conservative candidate and Oliver Baldwin successfully championed the candidacy of a brother throwback-Socialist, Mr. Oswald Mosley, son-in-law of that late pinnacle of Conservatism, Marquess Curzon of Kedleston.

Of Mrs. Stanley Baldwin, the one-time Lucy Ridsdale of Rottingdean, it is known that her charitable works are many, and it is said that she piously sees in her husband’s rise to power “the awful workings of Divine Providence.” Her housekeeping is hospitable and hearty. She takes care that the family board is loaded with many a fine pudding, many a ripe, odorous cheddar cheese. To her children she is wisely indulgent but strict in matters of religion. Even as tots they were not allowed—say friends of the family—to begin their prayers with “Now I lay me down to sleep;” rather, from the first, they lisped, “Our Father who art in Heaven. . . .”

* Mr. Law was then Chancellor of the Exchequer.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com