HIS EXCELLENCY INTERVENES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVI, Issue 16922, 30 July 1915, Page 6

HIS EXCELLENCY INTERVENES.

FOR STABLE GOVERNMENT

GOVERNOR TO CONFER WITH PARTY LEADERS.

[Fkoji Our ConmssroxDENT.]

WELLINGTON, July 29

An important development this afternoon gave fresh lifo to tho National Cabinet negotiations, which Parliamentarians had assumed to be quite at an end with the correspondence published to-day. His Excellency the Governor tendered his good offices, with a view to securing some arrangement for 1 guaranteeing stability to tho Administration during war time. When this became known members could hardly realise that the position required so important a step. Some talked of a big constitutional question being raised by his Excellency taking action before it could bo claimed that the Government is in jeopardy. Mr Masscy lias art undoubted majority, though it is hard in: praotico to maintain a. full attendance of hiu followers in readiness for any emergency, in fact, if the Opposition, "were in a hostile frame of mind the Government would be in difficulties now, dependent on Mr Speaker's casting vote, owing to Mr Sykes's illness depriving them of their margin of superiority over the other parties in Parliament. It may bo that his Excellency baa been assured by the Prime Minister that tho Government's position is intolerable, and that as it would be useless asking Sir Joseph Ward to form a Ministry with any prospect of commanding a majority, some arrangement between parties is needed to avoid the trouble and expense of an appeal to the ccrmtry.

A SINGULAR POSITION. ORDER PAPER CLEARED. NO WORK FOR PARLIAMENT. When tho Prime [Minister moved the adjournment of the House this afternoon ho fixed Tuesday as tho time for resuming business, explaining that Parliament had worked so rapidly that the Government was not prepared with) any further business. Ho gave another reason for the long adjournment. "It is more than possible," he said, " that a very important conference, at which certain members of the House are expected to he present, will take place to-morrow afternoon. If the House was sitting half a dozen members would have to 'lie called away td the conference." Committees would sit on Friday, ho explained, the Defence Committee having the War Pensions Bill to reconsider. Another reason for adjourning was that a lot of southern members wanted to get away. Mr Witty: A lot of us want to get on with the -work. The Prime Minister: The difficulty 13 to prepare legislation as fast as the House puts it through. Mr G-. W. Russell, speaking for the Opposition, said ho was in favour of sitting next day, doing whatever had! to bo done, and then adjourning. Ho thought the country was looking to tho House, notwithstanding the exceptional circumstances, to got on asi rapidly as possible with whatever business was available. He did not know whether tho order paper had been cleared. The Prime Minister: Very nearly. We .have dealt with eight Bills today. Mr Russell: That is a record. If tho Government has no business to go on with I havo no objection to the adjournment. Mr Witty asked if private members could use Friday for their own Bills. Their opportunities were fast disappearing.

The Prime Minister did not accept the suggestion and tho House was accordingly adjourned until Tuesday afternoon.

CONFERENCE ON MONDAY. [From Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, July 29. Tho proposed conference of leading Parliamentarian* with his Excellency tho Governor will not take place on Friday, but will probably bo held on Monday.

RECENT NEGOTIATIONS.

ARGUMENTS OF PARTY LEADERS. SIR JOSEPH WARD REPLIES TO MR MASSEY. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July 29. The following letter was issued tonight by Sir Joseph Ward: Dear Mr Massey,—l beg to acknowledge receipt of your lerter of the 28th iust., which was handed to mo at midnight, too late for an earlier reply. I do not for a moment question the sincerity of your desire to arrange for a strong, capable Government to carry on the business of the country with as little party friction as possible during the crisis" through which the Empire is now passing. I and tbose associated with mo havo been equally desirous of attaining that object, anu- I am sure we may take tho disinterested patriotism of both parties for granted. In reference to your statement that there was no substantial body of public opinion suggesting a larger representation for the Opposition than three members in a National Cabinet of nine members, I would remind you that you yourself recognised tho inadequacy of this representation by substituting the one contained in your letter or the 27th instant. I am not aware that the alteration was made as the result of any expression of puhlic opinion that could be ascertained by either of us. If your idea is that the ratio of representation should bo based upon an expression of public opinion, I would point out that this process might easily tend to defeat tho very object you have in View, You speak of the groat sacrifices that would have been imposed upor several of your colleagues by tho acceptance of your first proposal. Neces sarily, sacrifices must be madu on both

sides if a Cabinet is to be reconstructed on non-party lines for the publio good, but apparently you have overlooked tho fact that I, and those associated with me, would have had to make sacrifices at least as great as demanded of your colleagues. Wo were prepared to subordinate ourselves. to the welfare of New Zealand and of tho Empire, and I should bo sorry to think that you and your colleagues approached tho situation in a less earnest spirit.

1 regret I cannot agree with the viow you express in that portion of your letter dealing with the numerical strength of the two parties in tho House, nor with tho deductions you draw from your premises. The effective voting strength of the Government party gives it a majority of one, and to attempt now to differentiate between tho Liberal members and tho Labour members comprising the Opposition, while in your previous letter you treated the Opposition, and rightly so, as ono body, cannot help to elucidate the position or to serve any other useful purpose. It is obvious that no Government holding office with such a slender majority could hope to administer tho affairs of tho country with confidence and efficiency in such a tTmo as this without tho assistance of the Opposition, and it is with a frank desire to fivo your Government this assistance and those associated with mo have considered your various proposals. You say that you were given to understand " that there was a very largeproportion of tho Opposition memben who would not under any circumstancea consent to support a National Government." I can only [reply that you hava been misinformed. Rumours of this kind are scarcely worth discussing, but I can say with equal truth that I also was given to understand that thera was a considerable number of members on your side of tho House unfavourable te tho establishment of a National Cabinet. Only the future would havo shown whether the good sense of members holding views opposed to a National Cabinet would have induced them to place the country's interests before their personal preferences. You go on to say, "I think I am right in saying that the next suggestion came from yourself. It was that there should bo an equal number of European members on each eido. and that I as Prime Minister should possess a deliberative and a casting vote. This I accepted upon the understanding that the member of the Executive representing the Native race should bi requested not to exercise a vote except on matters directly affecting his people." A little further on you* say, "But when, we mot again you withdrew this offer." This statement you evidently male© under a misapprehension, of what actually occurred. It is quite correct that you discussed a proposal upon those lines with me. It was not my suggestion. You informed me that you thought it the farthest your party would go. I expressed the opinion that the Opposition would not accept) the proposal, but I undertook to submit it to some of the leading member? of tho party. This I did, and subsequently informed you that there waa no probability of the proposal being accepted. There was no withdrawal on ray part, because there was nothing for me to withdraw, and as far as I was concerned the reply to your last proposal iras embodied in my letter "to you of the 28th inst. J made it clear to you from the beginning of the negotiations that I could not make any definite proposal nor accept any proposal without first consulting tho membera of tho Opposition. With reference to the paragraph o{ yaw letter referring to the. portfolio* of Fuiance, Defence and Railways, T may remind you that the gentleman who stands next to yourself in tho Cabinet holds the portfolios of Finance and Defence. Tlie Minister of Railways stands third in order. The question of salary in my view has no bearing at all upon the point, and I have never given it tho slightest consideration. I think you will agree with me that it would bo absurd to measure the importance of a portfolio by tho amounl of salary attached to it at a timo when wo are dealing with matters of vastlj more consequence.

Apart from this, however, tho proposal , for a National Cabinet. originated in the desire that the Government) should be strengthened at a time when a great national call was being made upon its services. The demand centred around defence administration, and the provision of money for carrying on the war and meeting the financial exigencies arising out of it. It would be of little service to the country for the Opposition, through mo, to agree to join a National Cabinet and its representatives to be allotted portfolios having no direct connection with these Departments. Your statement regarding the representatives of the Government or the Opposition in relation to their numerical strength in tho Lower House does not correctly represent the position, as it is well'known that the policy of every Government is formulated in tho Cabinet room, where the full representation of the members of the Ministry of both chambers is of course available. I notice that you question my statement as to the serious condition of tha finance of the Dominion. lam very glad to have your assurance that there is no ground for misgivings on this point, but tho information available to the Opposition and the public disclose! a position which, in my judgment, demands the most serious consideration from those.responsible for the administration of the affairs of tfc© countryIt is not presumptuous on th© part of the Opposition, I think, to believe that its representatives might give you useful assistance in tliis respect. Your suggestion that equality of representation would produce a deadlock implies that such a contingency would be overcome by a majority of Reform Ministers in tho Cabinet. It seems to me that this arrangement would produce a condition of affairs even more deplorable than a deadlock, and I cannot help expressing tho opinion that if a deadlock did arise it would be better dailt with by a mutual exchange of views than by the dominance of a single party. ..... , Your reference to tho constitution ol the British National Cabinet is scarcely relevant to the position here, seeing that prior to its formation the Liberal Government had a majority of over one hundred votes in the House of Commons and that the British National Cabinet has to deal with great Imperial issues which cannot bo touched by our own Parliament. # . • I am fully oonscious of the needs of. the country at the present time and of the grave responsibility that rests upon myself and the other members of the Opposition. I already have indicated to you the direction in which our services mieht bo advantageously emnloved. and I wish again to assure you that we should regard no sacrifice and no effort that can reasonably be demanded from us too great to make for the promotion of the common weal of New Zealand and the Empire in tha present great national crisis. I remain, your sincerely, J. G. WARD. FARMERS' UNION RESOLUTION. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July 29. Tho Farmers' Union conference today carried a resolution expressing regret that negotiations between the two parties in tho House to form a National Ministry had fallen through, and stating that it was in the interest of the Dominion that both sides should make a further attempt to come to an arrangement.