M.P.’s LONDON VISIT

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 110, 3 February 1931, Page 11

M.P.’s LONDON VISIT

Complaint of Treatment

MR. D. JONES’S CHARGE

High Commissioner in Reply

When the vote for the High Commissioner’s Department was under discussion in the House of Representatives toward the end of last session, Mr. D. Jones, M.P. for Mid-Canterbury, complained strongly that the High Commissioner, Sir Thomas Wilford, had neglected to extend to him the usual courtesies enjoyed by New Zealand visitors when in London. In a reply to the charge received by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, Sir Thomas takes strong exception, not only to the complaint but the manner in which it was made.

“I want to say,” remarked Mr. Jones on the occasion in question, “that not one penny of the £4OO voted to the High Commissioner for the entertainment of official visitors was spent on me when I was in London. I called on the High Commissioner, but the only thing he did for me was to write a letter. I was the only member of the New Zealand Parliament in London when the New Zealand dinner took place a few days later, but I received no invitation to it from the High Commissioner.”

Many members of the House were impressed with Mr. Jones’s complaint, including a Labour member, who regretted that the chairman of the Meat Board should have been ignored and snubbed. The Minister In charge of the Estimates, Hon. P. A. de la Perrelle, also expressed regret that the High Commissioner had so treated a member of the House, and he undertook to seek an explanation from him. High Commissioner Hurt. Sir Thomas Wilford’s reply has been received by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, who handed it to the Press yesterday with the suggestion that in fairness to the High Commissioner it should at least receive as much publicity as the original complaint “The High Commissioner felt very hurt indeed,” remarked Mr. Forbes, “because, as I found, he takes the greatest care to do all he possibly can for New Zealanders visiting England, and he is ably assisted by Lady Wilford. I heard expressions of satisfaction on every side from New Zealanders at the able way in which Sir Thomas is filling the position, and while I was in London people came to thank him for privileges which he had been able to secure for them.”

The reply of the High Commissioner to the criticism submitted to him, as reported in Parliament, is as follows: “May I say at the outset that I read the extracts with considerable surprise, and I must take exception, not only to the complaint, but the manner in which it was made, for, in my opinion, it rests on no foundation. Mr. Jones, who was accompanied by Mrs. Jones and their two daughters, received at the hands of this office attention which no member of Parliament—not even one so well known as he is—should feel short of that to which he is entitled.

List of Functions.

“The following are the functions to which I submitted the names of Mr. and Mrs. Jones and the two daughters: Lady Jellicoe’s reception, in May (Mr. and Mrs. Jones and two daughters) ; British Empire Academy, tea party (Mr. and Mrs. Jones' and two daughters); Royal Agricultural Show at Manchester, opening (Mr. Jones) ; Lady Clarendon’s reception (Mr. and Mrs. Jones and two daughters) ; trooping of the colours; we would have offered to reserve a seat for Mr. David Jones, but we were informed that he would not be there. Seats were, however, reserved for Mrs. Jones and two daughters, and were used. A few days before the ceremony he found that he would be in London and asked for a ticket, but unfortunately all those placed at my disposal had already been distributed. I, however, immediately telephoned Sir Howard d’Egville, of the Empire Parliamentary Association and arranged for a ticket to be supplied through him; and I afterward saw him. “I may say,” said Sir Thomas, “that early in April Mr. Jones expressed a wish to hear Mr. Snowden make his Budget speech. I immediately took steps to obtain a card of admission to the House of Commons for his use, but unfortunately all places had been allotted.

The New Zealand Dinner.

“Now with regard to the New Zealand dinner. This is a function which is given under the auspices of the New Zealand Association, and is not one over which my office has any control. The selection of official guests, is made. by the executive of the association. This year the official guests were the members of the English Rugby football team, who were about to leave for .New Zealand, and well-known people interested in sport. It is perfectly true that I could have asked Mr. Jones or other New Zealanders in London whether they would be my personal guests, but as his (Mr. Jones’s) visit to this country was largely concerned with the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board, and as Mr. Forsyth had informed me that Mr. Jones would be his guest and would sit at his table, I did not ask the committee of the association for a special invitation for Mr. Jones.

“I may say that after Mr. Jones’s departure, the names of Mrs. Jones and the two daughters were submitted for the honour of invitation to the Royal Garden Party at Buckingham Palace and also for invitations to a reception to Mrs. Amery. In view of the above I think I may reasonably ask whether Mr. Jones was justified in stating that during the time he was in London ‘the High Commissioner did nothing for him in the slightest.’ ”

Sir Thomas Wilford concludes his reply by stating: “I fully realise what is expected of the High Commissioner in social matters. Sometimes I wonder whether it: is realised in New Zealand that during the season, between three hundred and four hundred New Zealanders call at New Zealand House every week. The record of my office in regard to Mr. Jones will bear comparison with the record of any other visitor at that time of equal importance, irrespective of his political opinions.”