Editorial: Tales Told by the Lady’s Maid

Those whose knowledge of the domestic servants of the rich is coloured by their reading of the luscious disclosures published from time to time in Sunday newspapers, will suppose that the normal first step taken by a valet or lady’s maid on being dismissed is to rush round to the nearest journalist to arrange for a series of articles headed, “Through the Keyhole,” “Our Dissolute Peerage,” or “Disgusting Orgies in Mayfair.” It is much more likely that these thrilling stories are written by the newspaper staffs or by professional writers, and that domestic servants are a much-maligned body of people. They may be far too scrupulous to make use of their knowledge of the weaknesses and foolishness of their employers. If, indeed, it is scruples only which hold them back they can easily get rid of these by modelling themselves on some of the politicians, for example, the former colleagues of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.

It was inevitable when the split occurred in the Labour Cabinet in 1931 that the two groups should tell each other a few home-truths, with some venom and the maximum of publicity. Lord Snowden, Mr. Thomas and Mr. MacDonald hastened to disclose that most of the Henderson group had been willing to agree to almost all of the economy “cuts.” As this was a really devastating blow, to which no adequate answer has been found, or is ever likely to be found, many of the big and little Labour men, peeved by loss of office and (in many cases) loss of parliamentary seats, fell back on the device of ”telling the real truth” about their former leaders.

It would not be true to say that all of them did this, but the offenders have been fairly well distributed among the various sections of the Labour Party. Some of the worst offenders are Mr. Hamilton Fyfe in Reynolds’ Illustrated News, and Mr. MacNeil Weir in Forward, Mr. Weir was Parliamentary Private Secretary to MacDonald, and, therefore, had access to many of the inner secrets. Professor Laski made his contribution also.

From these disgruntled people we have now learned the most surprising things. If they are to be believed they knew all along that MacDonald was childishly ignorant and credulous, extremely vain, a word-spinner to the point of incoherence, unduly fond of the company and flattery of the Peerage, a mere tool of big business and the bankers, obstinate yet easily turned from his path by hints from his political opponents, arrogant and unapproachable, always indifferent to the hardships of the workers, always dishonest in his political enthusiasms, a worshipper of applause and a seeker for limelight, and altogether a most unattractive, uninformed and useless person. Similar things were said of Thomas and Snowden.

Now there may be some, even a lot of truth in all these statements. Not being personally acquainted with Mr. MacDonald we are not in a position to say. What we can say has to do with the ex-valets rather than the masters. If these things are true how comes it that the whole band, from Maxton to Henderson, and from Bevin to Clynes, went on year in and year out following MacDonald, re-electing him leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, praising him extravagantly and vowing that never before was there a man so deserving of trust and confidence? How did the stupid and incompetent MacDonald so easily bamboozle all these clever fellows? They say that they always saw through him, yet he, apparently, twisted them round his little finger! What were they?—innocent victims or criminal fellow-conspirators? Did MacDonald take them in—in which case they are plainly unfitted for the hurly-burly of politics—or were they consciously helping MacDonald to take the workers in?

In short, when they told the workers all those years to have faith in the tried and trusty Socialist MacDonald, were they ignorant dupes or deliberate liars ? This, includes the Communist Party, which supported MacDonald for several years. It also includes Mr. Maxton, of, whom Hannen Swaffer writes in the Daily Herald (July 31st) that when the National Government was formed, Maxton told MacDonald in a private conversation, “I always knew you were not a Socialist, Mac. I can’t think worse of you now that you admit it.”

Will Mr. Maxton tell us why—knowing that MacDonald was not a Socialist—he told the workers at election after election that MacDonald was a Socialist, and was deserving of working-class support? Was it because MacDonald’s name at the head of l.L.P. appeals for funds enabled them to tap his rich friends ?

All this spate of disclosures intended to discredit MacDonald, Snowden and Thomas has at the same time shown up the rottenness of many of their former colleagues.