Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1921. THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ADDRESS

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 62, 14 March 1921, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1921. THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ADDRESS

The Leader of the Opposition—or, should we say, of that " particular coterie " of it which does not include Mr. M'Calluni?—is not likely to do his party much good by liis proposed amendment to the Address-in-Reply. He asks the House to affirm that " the Dominion should be adequately represented at the Imperial Conference," but that, ,in view of the important questions requiring to be dealt with locally, it records an " emphatic prStest against the holdingup of the country's business by the prorogation of Parliament beyond the usual' time." It was hardly to be expected that in a hostile amendment the Leader of the Opposition should lay that stress upon the unique importance of the Imperial Conference of 1921 of which the Government have refused to. say an adequate word throughout the recess, even after they had arrived at the very prbper decision that Prime Minister should attend the Conference. Yet the«degree motion, and the second is how the counference is obviously the first point to be considered in dealing with Mr. Wilford's motion, and the second is how the country can be "adequately represented" at such a Conference. If the Government had been wise they could have proved to everybody's satisfaction by this time that such questions as the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the organisation of the defence of the Pacific give to the coming Conference an importance equal to that of any of its predecessors. They could also have proved that in the question which will be found to lie at the back of these, though it will not be formally on the Order Paper—the constitutional relations of the self-governing States of ths Empire to one another—the Conference will have to consider an issue which previous" Conferences were not called upon to face, or even to contemplate, and which dwarfs in its -life-and-death importance everything % that they accomplished or attempted.

.That Mr. Massey and his colleagues have clearer ideas on this matter than they have yet considered it advisable to impress upon the public is indicated -by that cryptic and pregnant phrase in the Governor-General's Speech to which we referred on Friday. They consider that the Dominion Prime Ministers should personally discuss and determine the constitutional issues that must come before the Conference, "so that there may be no question as to the continued cohesion of the Empire itself." Is the Leader of the Opposition aware that doctrines which seriously threaten that cohesion have, been authoritatively advocated in other Dominions, and especially in South Africa? Is he in agreement with, those doctrines? Dpes he desire to see Nev< Zealand setting up a foreign policy of her own and appointing ambassadors of her own, independently of and therefore sometimes in conflict with those of the .Mother .Country? Does he. think that the multiplication of foreign policies in this way can bo reconciled with the "continued cohesion" of the Empire? Though we have not the slightest doubt as to wha^t the answer of Mr. Wilford the constitutional lawyer and Mr. Wilford the patriot must be to these qu«s--Uoaa, yst ovtr cm* it m strong Uu^

even if both these authorities are overruled by Mr. Wilford the party politician, it is not destroyed. Even if it is desirable that the Empire should have half-a-dozen foreign policies instead of one, and half-a-dozen Sovereign legislatures instead of one, the change will nevertheless require some sort of preparation and. co-ordination. It calls accordingly for the closest attention of the concentrated statesmanship of the Empire before things have drifted any further.

Whether, therefore, the ideal be cohesion or disintegration, the conclusion is equally clear that at the Conference, where Mr. Wilford desires to see the Dominion " adequately represented," its only adequate representative is its Prime Minister. Neither any of his colleagues nor the High Commissioner, however well qualified personally, could possibly fill the place, since they would lack the official authority and responsibility which arc indispensable. * It is necessary therefAe that the Prime Minister" should attend the Conference personally, and we can hardly suppose that Mr. Wilford will seriously dispute it, or that anybody not obsessed* by party prejudice will take him<.seriously if he does. The only point remaining is whether, if Mr. Massey must go, Parliament should nevertheless

observe its normal time-table. It is easy to see thaf-to Mr. Wilford, the party politician, a session without the Prime Minister would present many attractions., but against these must be set the interests not of the Reform Party but of the country. Will the general interests be best served by a delayed and shortened session with Mr. Massey in charge, or by a session of the usual length held at the usual time without him?

Both lawyers and politicians are fond of precedents, and Mr. Wilford may therefore be presumed to know that there are precedents on the point. He must also know that these precedents were all established or concurred in by his own party, and that with, so far as we know, but a single exception they are .against his present contention. When Mr. Seddon went to London for the Coronation Conference of 1902, he left Sir Joseph Ward as his lieutenant to take the session at the usual time, but 'Sir Joseph Ward did not follow this course himself when he became Prime Minister, nor was it followed by the National Government of which both ho and Mr. Wilford were members; Of course, the general practice thus established by common consent is not binding like a legal authority. The question must bo determined in each case by the balance of convenience, but the established practice at least raises a presumption in favour of the course proposed by the Government, and the presumption is strengthened by the concluding point in the voluminous Labour amendment. Mr. Holland asks the House to protest against the appointment as Acting-Prime Minister of "an honourable gentleman who is not a member of the House of Representatives." The "strong disapproval" with'which the Labour Party regards the proposal would obviously apply still more strongly if the man who, both by seniority and by ability, is designated as the Prime Minister's deputy were to take charge of the Legislature as well as of the Executive. Nor is the point a mere dilemma or tv quoque. It really emphasises the fact that the present Government has a stronger case than some of its predecessors for following the usual rule.