The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1924. THE NEW BRITISH CABINET

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11736, 25 January 1924, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1924. THE NEW BRITISH CABINET

Momentous as the change of Government is everywhere considered, the business of its establishment was got over with remarkable promptitude. Even more satisfactory was the smoothness of the proceedings. In both respects the establishment heats every record in the long history of Parliamentary government. The great crisis—as the situation is universally regarded—resulted only in the speeding up of the constitutional machinery. The first act was the stoppage of the debate by many amendments, all perfectly proper and to he expected, and it is noteworthy that this was done by a larger majority than that which passed the crucial amendment of Mr Clynes, the figures being respectively 72 and 77. Thus the first act was the abolition of useless talk in favour of “get on with the business.” Of the event, it can be said that it was a further triumph of constitutional principle; ana of the party leaders all must agree that nothing became them so well respectively as the leaving of office by the one and the acceptance of it by the other. As a matter of course, the comments so busy during the time of preliminary proceedings have ceased, and the first comment on the new situation was the navvy’s short greeting, ‘‘Are you Premier, Mac?” This after the gasp of amazement from millions of national throats. Actually, the navvy voiced the constitutional acceptance of the whole nation. In the face of that manifostation of loyal commonsense, who shall say again that the British are a decadent. people P Two newspapers have between them summarised the popular view behind this general acceptance. The “Daily Express” sees hopes of “sound government in the unquestionable ability of the new Ministers and in the large proportion of new blood among them” ; while the “Morning Post.’’ declares “There ifj not much to take exception to,” says it might have been worse, and does a little hedging, quite natural in its case, by expressly reserving full approval "until the Under-Secre-taries are appointed”—a comment suggestive of the last ditch for the "Diehards,” whose feelings must be handled with tender sympathy. These two expressions of opinion appear to sum up a public mind quite determined that the Labour Government, having reached power by the constitutional way, is entitled to fair play, and will get it. The bulk of the names announced of tho new Cabinet Ministers surprises no one, of coarse. That Mr Ramsay Macdonald should have for his colleagues Arthur Henderson, Clynes, Thomas, Henderson, Snowden, Webb, Hartshorn, Wedgwood, and Shaw was

I a foregone conclusion with all who follow the course of politics. Of these, everyone is of outstanding ability. Mr Macdonald’s assumption of the Foreign Secretaryship is a guarantee of very extensive knowledge of foreign affairs, acquired by diligent study and more reinforced than the knowledge of private students usually is by his friendship in recent years with Mr Lloyd George in his Ministerial days, which made him familiar with things behind the scenes. Mr Clynes’s position as Deputy-Leader of the Commons, such a position as Mr Bonar Law occupied during the Lloyd George regime, was foreshadowed by his selection to move the crucial amendment which opened the party’s way to power, and his appointment is a proof that his chief has taken thought for the conduct of the Commons in all the possible emergencies of an exceptionally difficult Ministerial position. Mr Sydney Webb’6 history qualifies him for the Presidency of tho Board or Trade, though some of his party might have liked to see him given the Labour portfolio now in the hands of Mr Shaw, against whom, however, they can have no objection. Mr Hartshorn, who, if we remember right, was once prominent in advocating the capital levy, will not have much to do with finance . as Postmaster-General. Mr Wheatley might he preferred by some of his people as Labour or Tr'ade, and regarded as thrown away in the Department of Health, but his prestige in Labour circles is certainly not what it was. Philip Snowden, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, will cause perhaps more comment than all his colleagues, for lie has favoured the capital levy in his day. On the other hand, liis chief not long ago talked of this matter as one to be referred to a Royal Commission; in other words, as an “Old Man of the Sea” to he lowered gently into the sea of oblivion.

Three non-Labour members —to call them by a name generally distinctive —are Lord Haldane, Sir C. Trevelyan, and Lord Chelmsford. The first of these received very hard measure from his Liberal colleagues and his chief of the Asquith Ministry, by whom he was, in spite of very valuable services —-in the opinion of many, including Lord Kitchener, very decisive services—shelved. He gets his reinstatement both in offioe and public opinion as Lord Chancellor, and his experience of the War Office, together with his knowledge of foreign affairs—his part in which was cruelly misrepresented on a famous occasion by .a somewhat savage Press—will be of great benefit to the new Ministry. As Minister for Education Sir C. Trevelyan is in the right place, and it can be easily said that none better could have been selected by any Prime Minister of any shade of politics. Lord Chelmsford, as the exGovernor of New South Wales, who spoke up handsomely during the election contest for the Labour Cabinet of that State, with which he had worked as the King’s representative, receives the recognition at the hands of the Labour Leader to which he was entitled. About the granting of peerages to certain members of the Cabinet, a matter being publicly discussed, it is probable that in Labour circles the appointment to the Upper House of popular rejects may be objected to. But the deeper impression created will be: (1) Of the readiness of the Labour Party to use the machinery at hand for their work; and (2) of the selection of really able and experienced men for Cabinet rank. At all events, there can be none of the feeling caused by the bestowal of honours on men who have subscribed largely to party funds. No one can say, for example, if Arthur Henderson is made a lord, that he has paid a schedule price for the honour. Labour may cough on learning that in the Cabinet there are but nine who have lived by manual labour. But the need for experience and commanding talent will be regarded as overwhelming—and the evidence of it has astonished the country—and Mr Ramsay Macdonald’s modest slogan of “service first” will not be without its effect.

The policy of the Government has yet to be announced; one newspaper correspondent has declared that the leader will concentrate on unemployment, housing, and agriculture. The "Daily Herald” has explained that whatever the business may be, everything important is to be treated by a system which gives all preliminary study to committees of the Cabinet, with final resolve in the hands of the Government. If they are true, they are welcome signs of coming good work. As to them, however, we must wait for future information. Prompt devotion to duty and realisation of responsibility are evident in the tackling of the railway strike by Mr Arthur Henderson. There is a report that the party aspires t<f dominate the Cabinet, and that the Prime Minister demurs decidedly, not liking the caucus system .or anything like it, and has promised to have the matter examined by a committee. For the rest, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the ‘‘Liberal Commoners” have passed resolutions to give the Government countenance and fair support, so long as it avoids Communism. Thus, on the whole, we can regard the Ramsay Macdonald Cabinet as fairly launched. Details of its voyaging will be watched with eager interest. What can be said now is that Mr Ramsay Macdonald has taken care to secure the right ability and experience to enable him to accomplish the task he has very modestly accepted of governing the realm.