The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1917. STOCKHOLM AND FUTILITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9740, 16 August 1917, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1917. STOCKHOLM AND FUTILITY

In tile middle of the controversy, when everything has been done, and very little remains to bo said, it is announced that the Crown Caw officers have advised against participation in the Stockholm Conference. At once one wonders why the Government dul not promptly act upon that adviceFrom its legal advisors Mr Lloyd George’s Cabinet know that no British subject can go to Stockholm, to a conference with enemy subjects about a matter entirely within the province of the Government. lit know, at the same time, that the Russian Government -was against the Conference at Stockholm. It knew this from the best authority; no other, in fact, than the Russian Government itself. This removed all fear on the score of expediency, A -noisy, extravagant, anarchistic extremist minority is proclaiming now that the .Russian Government wants the Conference. This is the minority which considers that it forced the Government to sanction the devious aud illusory peaae method Which was set to go round as Stockholm. It takes advantage of the fact that the Government is, as a Revolutionary Government, anxious, under the unprecedented circumstances of its unique career, to avoid all friction and even appearance of friction. During the Labour Conference it insisted on the desire of the Government for the Stockholm Conference. Therein Hr Henderson, who knew the truth, aided and abetted their falsehood. But that docs not help the Government. The Government knew- the truth about the Russian Government. It should not have depended on Mr Henderson to make that truth known. The message to Mr Henderson aggravates the position of the Government, because it should have kept the secret of the Russian Government, It knew the secret, and it know that, according to law, no British subject could go to Stockholm. It ought to have seen that both justice and expediency combined in calling for a public announcement forbidding attendance at Stockholm and notifying refusal of all passports. That would have settled the matter once for all beyond peradventure.

That would hare been the proper course, the just course, the effective course, and the dignified course. Moreover, it would have been the course to be expected from a Government which has been freed from party clamour for the very purpose of doing strong things in exceptional circumstances. But in this case, with its duty marked out clearly and impera--ivcly indicated by combination of two authorities, of the very best, the Government of Mr Lloyd George drifted silently towards the breakers, in a manner that would have been surprising, oven from a set of petty hucksters. The Empire, and the cause of Empire, the Entente and the cause of the Entente, which is the cause of righteousness, required an act of strength at the right moment. What ■ they got was chatter, culminating in a scene in the House of Commons, made doubly ignoble by recriminations. It is a scene humiliating to road, and maddening to consider. The more when wo know that tiie other Entente Governments issued the prohibitions against Stockholm. Still more when we realise that the conduct of these Governments has the cordial of the democracies they represent. But after all should anv Government in u matter of right and wrong, which is also a matter touching its own executive honour, in a moment of vital necessity—in such a matter should anv Government wait for law officers to tell it what the law says, and for the .voice of expediency to clear the airf A Government worthy o i the name of Government should see for itself what is right and act for itself aoewding to its view of the right. The failure to do anything but chatter ignobly suggests the conclusion that if Mr Lloyd George goes the way of Asquith it will not be surprising. The case is made worse by another point, with which the Government showed itself quite conversant. Mr Lloyd George said that even if the yer-

diet of the Conference represented Labour, he must remember that. Labour is not all the people. A democratic ruler must not allow any section to rule —the Labour section no more than any other section. In these days of war, and of thinly veiled anarchic aggression, this must more especially be emphasised in the minds of rulers of democracies. Mr Lloyd George dd emphasise it, true, but be did so after the event. He waited till Labour broke away audaciously, usurping a pr.no.pal Government function. the func.ion of talking peace with the enemy in the midst of war, and then he made the m.ld statu mont of a urine.pic—-that Labour is not the whole people—upon which he ought to have acica with unconiproni.sing, prompt vigour. He ought to have announced personally to tne Labour Conference that the law pronounces against the desire of certa.n individuals to go to Stockholm, according to the obvious canons of justice; that no passports would be issued for Stockholm; ‘and that condign punishment would be meted out to all und sundry who might disobey the mw. Tne Labour Conference would have understood him. All present would have seen' the Macdonald-Henderson crowd in their true light; all would have recognised the determination and strength ol the Government; all would have admitted that like any other section of the community, must plav the democratic game, and there would have been no resolution to send to Stockholm. That would have boon an act of leadership. Leadership implies mastery, diplomacy, some--times suggests tlio soft answer against wrath; but mastery never ui down to be kicked. This is wha the Lloyd George Government dia; n found itself kicked, and it went off in a fever of chatter; This is hardly edifying, especially as bw«ion the extinguisher on it by foibidding the Conference to bo held at Stockholm.