THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1924. LABOUR AND THE EMPIRE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18657, 13 March 1924, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1924. LABOUR AND THE EMPIRE.

[ A few weeks ago Mr. J. H. Thomas, i the Labour Government's Secretary. | of State for the Colonies, was telling Britain of his discovery of the Empire. His short time in office had been long enough to reveal to him how fine a thing the Empire was, and how well worth defending. Now Mr. Henry Holland, leader of New | Zealand's Labour Party, is pouring I scorn Upon the Singapore base, in a | way that manifests little love for the I Empire and less care for its defence. | To this comparison of opinions may be illuminatingly added the comj ment of Mr. T. M. Wilford, leader j of the Dominion Parliament's Oppo- | sition, who knows both • the Singa- ! pore base and Mr. Holland. He declares that he is prepared to meet arguments against the base as soon as they cease to be mere generalities, and that he has never heard Mr. Holland advocating any method lof Empire defencc. Mr. Thomas' I enthusiasm and Mr. Holland's inI difference stand in marked contrast. | Which represents Labour 1 Among British Labour leaders, Mr. Thomas does not stand alone; yet he belongs apparently to a minority there. Here | Mr. Holland ! claims to speak, not only for his own " Parliamentary following, but for /' the Australian Labour party, the Labour parties of I Great- Britain and Ireland, and the ( whole: of the other Dominions." It is just possible that in this claim Mr. . Holland ' speaks the ! truth: ! Labour has never, except in a few purple patches, springing into visibility, at election time and at other political crises, manifested any concern about the Empire. For the Empire's history it has shown no taste. The responsibilities, tasks, perils, and opportunities of Imperial j development have had no real in- | terest for it. If the Empire were ! rent - in pieces to-morrow Labour ! would; rso far as the political speeches of its accepted spokesmen may be taken as testimony, feel no grief;,' The Singapore base bids fair to be a touchstone .of Imperial sentiment. There seems no doubt about its being innocuous as a menace to 1 other: peoples. Mr. . Holland' own I description of it agrees with that : ji what she declares will be ineffective I as a means of defence can hardly be !a' threatening of others' security, j But, Mr. Holland notwithstanding, those who carry ( the burden of Imi perial; defence, while disclaiming any [design to % violate < international peace, advocate expenditure on the base as an insurance of Britain;' trade and communications. If they are rightand Mr. Holland has not ! ventured on the task of proving i them wrongthen opponents of the j scheme are careless about the Em- | pire's integrity, if not bent on dej stroying it. Mr. Holland's speech | implies that a substantial majority of ; the people of this Dominion are | included among those opponents. | That is cheap rhetoric. He bears no ! commission as : their spokesman, j whatever may. be his ability to speak I for Labour.

' Mr. Holland avers that the Singapore base, although in his opinion valueless as . a means of defence, would furnish a rich . harvest of national suspicions, ripening toward fear and hatred, and ultimately making for further " warfare." Stripped of its* rhetorical garb, his statement .means that a precaution of ,defence is an incitement to attack. It would be interesting to know if Mr.Holland ever kept a dog, even one of obviously harmless manners, or had a lock on his front door, although one easily picked, or affected a walking-stick, say of the swagger-pane variety and if any or all of these defensive measures, not conspicuously, hostile, aroused his neighbours to furious assault on his person and property. If so, he has had a singularly unfortunate experience, not usual with possessors of dogs and locks and walking-sticks. His argument would make of every boundary a temptation to trespass, and of every policeman a provoker of riots. It is as sound an argument ' as that to carry an umbrella is a • sure way of bringing rain. It sees j no difference between wearing a coat I and trailing it. Mr. Holland may ] expect that such reasoning will go 'j down with the Labour Party, " unj compromisingly. opposed" to the i Singapore base and therefore com- ; mitted. to applaud every derisive j attack upon it; but his platform J pyrotechnics will not dazzle others. j There may be good reasons to j examine closely the details of the i defensive plan and its cost. Common 1 prudence inspired the proposal in the ' first place; and common prudence i should be exercised in carrying it i out. Criticism of a reasonable kind J is not merely welcome; it is obliga- > j tory on everybody qualified to exj press an opinion. But a wholesale dismissal: of the scheme on no definite ground and an endeavour to blow it away with a blast of dialectic fiction are proof, not of serious examination of a particular plan for ' . Imperial defence, but of objection to Imperial defence altogether. Is it j so negligible , a , thing? Have Mr. c Holland's Labour friends in other f ■ : v

countries, say Germany and Russia, proved so scrupulously careful not to injure Britain or to intrigue against British rule overseas that the Empire's fate may be Rifely left at the mercy of international affection? That were too sanguine a creed in days when "national suspicions," ready, according .to Mr. Holland, to ripen into fear and hatred and produce war, are still rife. The fact of lihe matter is that Labour, obsessed still with the Marxian programme of uniting the so-called " workers of the world," is prejudiced against all national sentiment. The Empire means nothing to its loudest-spoken exponents. A saner view has come to some leaders like Mr. Thomas, especially where national responsibilities , have been felt but the thoughtless rank and file, misled by men with' no vision beyond their own class, have never envisaged the Empire. It is not only Imperial defence that is idly scorned. Imperial trade is to them of no vital concern: " preferential trade," in Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald's words of years ago, is to those who, unlike their writer, have not outgrown the foolish preconception, nothing but "the proposal of individual capitalists who desire to • make money out of our Imperial connections." 'Imperial migration has no attraction. When the Yorkshire and West of England schemes of overseas emigration were discussed in those localities, Labour delegates to general social conferences on the proposals were found voting- in favour; but associations of Labour, voting as units, passed resolution after resolution in opposition; mass feeling was blindly prejudiced against anything Imperial. The same failure to take the Imperial view is seen in the reply of the Minister for Labour to questions on unemployment asked in the Commons this week: significantly, he made ho reference to the Overseas Settlement plans. Labour in New Zealand-has been equally cold toward that scheme. It would seem that, however far some Labour leaders have travelled since Mr. Mac Donald declared that the Labour Party has as yet sanctioned no Imperial policy," the party as a whole has made no advance at all. It has no use for the.Empire, however much the Empire has done for it.