Evening Post TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1942. A DECISION AND ITS REASONS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 84, 6 October 1942, Page 4

Evening Post TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1942. A DECISION AND ITS REASONS

The decision of Mr. Coates and Mr. Hamilton to remain members of the War Cabinet, not as representatives of the National Party but at the invitation of the Prime Minister, is personal. Whether they would accept the party decision or act according to their own judgment, with due consideration of their obligations to the people who elected them, was a matter they alone could decide. No one will blame them for placing their services at the disposal of the Government at this time if they believe that to be the way in which they can best serve the country. But the joint statement announcing the decision goes much further than that. Neither Mr. Coates nor Mr. Hamilton has any right to cast aspersions, as they have done throughout the statement, oil the other members of the National Party who, for reasons which have been plainly stated and the validity of which will be recognised in the country, have retired from membership of the War Administration. Above all, they have no right to question the motives of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland) and to suggest that his action, and that of his colleagues, amounts to political manoeuvring. No one worked harder than Mr. Holland, in the face of considerable opposition within his own party and at considerable sacrifice, to bring about the degree of political unity achieved by the formation of the WaiAdministration, and no one regrets more than he does the failure of the experiment. The decision of the National Party to withdraw its representatives from the Administration was based on an important question of principle, and the suggestion by Mr. Coates and Mr. Hamilton that it was made in .order to gain some political advantage is as unworthy as it is regrettable. In thus questioning the sincerity of former colleagues they have set a bad example, and hampered the unity for the attainment of which they claim to act.

Mr. Coates and Mr. Hamilton say that they do not condone the miners' strike, but the public will not be easily convinced that the attitude they have adopted towards their former colleagues in the War Administration, and particularly towards Mr. Holland, does not in itself amount to a condonation of the weakness and vacillation which the Government displayed in handling the dispute. The reference to a "political strike"—an attempt to put the National exMinisters on the same plane as the striking miners—is just a clumsy effort to cloud the main issue. The War Administration came to an end on the issue whether the law, having been invoked against the strikers, was to be allowed to function to the full extent. It has been argued by the Government that had the penalty imposed by the Court been carried out—that is, if the gaol sentences had been made effective—the country would have been deprived of the services of the convicted miners at a lime when coal was urgently needed. This argument is now adopted by Mr. Coates and Mr. Hamilton. But surely the Government considered this before it initiated the prosecutions! Surely the brave speeches made by Ministers were not made without reckoning what was involved. If the Government was not prepared to allow the law to take its logical course, then it should not have set the machinery of the law in motion. To prosecute, to obtain convictions, and then to set aside the penalties imposed by the Magistrate is to bring the law into disrepute. And that was the rock on which the War Administration split. Mr. Holland and his colleagues stood for firm action. The Government said it did, but failed to stand.

Whether the break-up of the War Administration will be followed by a General Election has yet to be decided. Jt will no doubt be discussed when Parliament reassembles later this month. Naturally the decision taken must depend very largely on the war situation. But for Mr. Coates and Mr. Hamilton to describe Mr. Holland's reference to a General Election as precipitate and drastic is unreasonable. When the War Administration was formed, bringing with it a measure of political unity, a postponement of the election was justifiable. But that particular Justification has disappeared now (hat the Government has reverted to ihe former party position. Whether there is a different justification for prolonging the life of Parliament must be considered anew, with full consideration of the war situation and the rights of electors.