The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1923. A NEW DEPARTURE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11693, 4 December 1923, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1923. A NEW DEPARTURE

Mr Massey at Belfast spoke up strongly for Protection. So doing, he placed himself in the British electoral arena. He did eo as an active champion on the Conservative side. The side he took matters little in comparison with the fact that he took a side at all. The fact is astonishing, inasmuch as it is unprecedented and uncalled for .• It is, in fact, a breach of the unwritten law that forbids outsiders from interfering in the domestic affairs of Britain. By this action Mr Massey has I laid himself open to criticism, which is likely to be many-headed and unsparing.' We need not discuss this criticism, under its obvious headings of bad manners, unwarrantable interference, breach of hospitality, and the rest. This because we do not think it at all likely that Mr Massey would deliberately commit a breach of manners or foroe himself into a contest in which he has ho place. He has always hitherto shown his understanding of hie position as an oversea representative, who is in, the Old Country for the sole purpose of discussing matters of Imperial, concern at a Conference assembled for that purpose alone. Then, that purpose having been accomplished, by what reason can. Mr Massey justify his interference in the British general election? It is not an interference such as we see in the cases of the various champions fighting on either side. It is an advisory interference, so to speak. It is not, moreover, in a representative capacity. Oh the face of it, it is Mr Massey, a private individual, giving his private friends at a banquet they have tendered to him, his views on a public matter, interesting to them and to himself alike; to them because they are engaged in a contest between free trade and protection, and to him because he has been engaged in such a contest in his own country, and likes to toll them that the decision in favour of protection has been followed by good re. suits. But even on this view he has interfered in the election. So much is clear from the nature of the advice he gave. That advipe was not academic. It went further than the academic scope, by raising the question to Imperial predominance. Forget party considerations and local views, said Mr Massey in effect. Take the Imperial view, which is that this question of free trade and protection requires to be settled by the British constituencies in favour of protection. That, after all said and done, is intpr-

fering in the politics of the Homeland, which is barred against his interference by custom and good manners. Then why did Mr Massey interfere? The answer to that question is to be found, we believe, in the recent imperial Conference. The question on which the general election in Britain is being fought rose out- of the Conference proceedings. So much is evident to anyone who followed- the proceedings of tho Conference with moderate attention. It is tho first time in history that a colonial question—now known, as all such are, as an oversea question—has developed force enough to divide the British constituencies at a general election. The policy of Imperial preference was brought into prominence at the Conference, and its interest waxing strong, it developed into an economic question of the greatest magnitude for the British Empire, a question in which the oversea dominions aro as vitally interested as is tho United Kingdom. The development is astonishing, as wc have pointed out in a previous reference to the subject. Then, does the fact that the oversea dominions are interested justify an oversea representative man in taking any part, advisory or otherwise, in tho British general election? It cannot do that of itself. But something can be said for the interference ef an oversea outsider, if it can be shown that the Conference came to a determination, with the consent of the British representatives, to actively help the Government in its desire to offer the constituencies the policy into which the Imperial preference of the Conference had developed. Is there any evidence of such a compact? It there were no evidence hut Mr Massey’s action, that would be enough to justify a presumption that some such compact had been agreed upon, and that, if it did not fully justify Mr Massey’s action, would, give it a reasonable excuse, strong enough, at all events, to disarm all asperities of criticism. It might even inspire general respect for tho men of overseas joining in support of a policy they had initiated and brought into prominence. But there is other evidence. It is of a much more positive character. The Prime Minister of Canada has taken an early opportunity of decisively refusing to say anything about the question dividing tho British constituencies', except that it- is, a thing which does not concern his Dominion at all. It is an ostentatious obedience to tho unwritten law ol non-interference by outsiders in the domestic policies of Great Britain.; It decisively answers any presumption from tho action of another Prime Minister—also a member. like the Canadian, of the Imperial Conference —that there was any compact for help from the dominion representatives in forwardance of the policy of their initiation. It is thus evident that there was no such compact. A little reflection, in fact, ought to prevent anyone from supposing that there could have been such a compact. It would, for obvious reasons, be a mistake for any outsider to take any part, advisory' or practical, in a British general election. Mr Mackenzie’s “No affair of Canada's” covers the whole matter. For an outsider to have interfered in obedience to a compact there would have been some excuse. But for one who “butted in on hie own” there can he none. This conclusion is not entirely personal. It puts a end to the idea, that was gaining ground, that the British Government had enlisted the oversea dominions for its electioneering campaign of a great Imperial policy.