OVERNIGHT CABLES

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12086, 15 August 1917, Page 2

OVERNIGHT CABLES

Mr mm:i SPEECH IN COMMONS. CABINET AND CONFERENCE. LONDON. A'lsllst 13. la the Houso or Coaimoas 31 Henderson, speaking from th Labour benches said Tim fu] story regarding the Stockholm Con ft renco could not, be told a present. He would await the tinu who: it would be possible to state ali th facts without injury to nat.orr.il inter " esite, but the attacks by tho r"ress ha< forced him to deal with certain events regardless of th© consequence. He ad vised the Labour Party on June 24 't nccept the invitation to Stockholm His visit to Paris was discussed at ; special meeting of Cabinet tho day be fore his departure. He wired 'the La hour Party's decision to Mr Lloyi George, who was then in Paris. M Lloyd George and his colleagues stooi convicted of having intimated to th. House that the for th Paris visit were mad© w.ihout th-ei kcov.'ledge. Mr Lloyd George interjected: ''Th only wire I received said that ycu w T coming to Paris with Uio Russian dc.le gates and Mr Ramsay Mac Donald." w Mr Bonar Law also interposed: '' M Henderson's colleagues were givei no intimation of his intention in Paris until the arrangement were' made. They clearly expressec of the visit." Mr jricnderson rep^od: "That doe; ■not alter the f.-iet tint, th* War Cnbine at a speoial meeting discussed th< visit." Continuinc;, b:: fl.ndersnn ?;uc that he announced at the War Cabinet tho Labour Executive's decision to recommend the acceptance of the Stock holm iuvita.tion. The opinion of C ibi •ncc ivrv sharply divided. All his col leagues opposed him, and he offered r c rosien. He explained Mr Lloyc George's opinion regarding the consultative Conference at Stockholm After Ms return from Paris, Mi Lloyd George invited him to a special Cabinet. He was kept waiting outside for a full hqur, and then Mr Bnmes was sent out to make a statement. Mr Henderson said to Mr Barues: "I do not do business in this way. Ei;lxr 1 am a member of Cabinet or I am not. If I am, I will talk to the Cabinet." Mr Barnes conveyed the message, and Mr Henderson was admitted to the room. Mr Lloyd George explained 'that he had been kept- waiting out of regard for his personal feelings. He pretested against such treatment. Mr Henderson complained that he •war- not <*iven an opportunity to state in Cabinet his reasons in favour of the Stockhohn Conference. Cabinet had already received 'the Crown Law officers' advice against participation. He suggested ob 6 immediate announcement cf the decision if tho Government proposed to act on it, and also Baid that he would resign if Cabinet acted on it. The othor Labour Minister considered that tho Labour Conference should not be fettered l>v the X»aw Officers' advice. Mr Henderson denied that 'ho had been requested 'to announce the Government's position to Friday's conference. He would have resigned at first if Mr Lloyd George's letter had said that if he was committed tto the Stockholm Conference he ought to resign. His speech en Friday was simply an impartial ~ * statement of the Labour executive's view. He spoke as the Labour secretary. He contended that ho gave the conference a correct, summary of the Russian Government's position. Lie had been censured for not stating that the Russian Government was opposed to a mandatory conference. He impressed that on the Conference. If a .telegram had been received from M. Xerensky on Friday he had not received it, but while waiting in the Premier's secretary's room, after the close of the Conference, he was told v that M. Kerensky, in a telegram, had I dissociated himself from the Stockholm I . Conference. Mr Henderson said that I he received a letter from Mr Lloyd I -George on Friday, when he was quittjng th© platform. ' 'THE PREMIER'S REPLY. Ms Lloyd George said that he did fiot intend to reply to the trivialities comprising three-quarters of the speech delivered by Mr Henderson. All the members of Cabinet understood that Mr Henderson had. changed his mind and intended strongly to oppose the , Stockholm Conference and state tho ; Government's position. If Mr HenderJ 60n had done that ho would have greatly influenced the Labour Confer- •. ence against Stookholm. Replying to Mr Philip Snowden, Mr Lloycl George refused to stato who wrote the telegram received on Friday. Mis letter to Mr Henderson on Friday was sent in good time and should have reached him in good time. At >ll events, Mr Henderson could have 'read it at the Conference before the Vote was taken. It would have made substantial difference in the voting (if the vast majority of the Conference. 'Nothing was more fatal than such conferences with the enemy at tho very jjpoment when the Russians were taking thd first step towards the restoration sf.,discipline. It wa& to prevent tho of f!io armies at tho frbnt that the British, French, Italian flhd American Governments agreed iipon the Conference project and decided that peace terms, if discussed, jtijtfcit be discusised b> representatives of the whole nation. Ho was the last man to disparage Labour's power, but jOabour was not .the whole people. When peace came to bo made it must be made by the nation as a whole. Britain would not bo doing her duly to her Alließ, especially to* Russia, if , iHe consented to a sectional peace. ; Mr Henderson explained that he did ' ®ot, read Mr Lloyd George's letter to ; the Conference, because h e had already informed the Conference that Russia's Jw&ition regarding the Stockholm Con- ! tferendS had been modified. "Cabinet \ras aware that I resolutely favour.d tlie Stockholm Conference. Mr Lloyd George's letter suggests that I should have resigned, knowing the adverse views of the colleagues. if I had resigned before the Conference, the vole in favour of Stockholm wculd have been larger, enabling it to b. .o-d J-it it was not a v voi;,-. on the merit,, but on Mr Henderson's Mil ASQlTrii'i II l Lo.\t/U.\, Angus: i •• Mr Apqunh i,i !; ,t he re-. .-.| F> th* unfortanaro Un'uiubteciiy there had b-.y.a toiae mis;!..;; standing. The di-odc-.ures slowed Uio impassibility of a Minister filling a du .1 capacity. A conflict of interests must eventually arise. The o:i.y peac 0 which would satisfy 'the Allied peopl.s as recompense'for their sacrifices was a peace, i approved by the peoples of all the • : tries, concerned. Ho'would bo sorry :f as a result of the debate it would go forth to the world that Labour favoured going to Stockholm to pave the way for a precarious, dishonourable peace. /* Labour's declaration cf policy showed that they were determined to pursue the war to the end. There was no djpabt about Labour, except an insigni-; Scant minority. i,The pacifists accepted Mr Ascjuith's nol< to pursue the matter furand the subject' was dropped.