NATIONAL CABINET NEGOTIATIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3995, 30 July 1915, Page 6

NATIONAL CABINET NEGOTIATIONS.

LAST OF THE SECRET HISTORY REVEALED; SIR JOSEPH WARD’S REPLY TO MR MASSEY. . FULL REVIEW FROM THE LIBERAL STANDPOINT. [Press Association Telegram.J WELLINGTON, July 29. The following letter was issued tonight by Sir Joseph Ward : Dear Mr Massey,— I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter on the 28th hist., which was handed to me at midnight—too .late for an earlier reply. .1. do not lor a moment question the sincerity of your desire to arrange lor a strong capable Government to carry on the business of the country with as little party friction as possible during the crisis through which the Empire is now passing. 1 and those associated with mo have been equally desirous of attaining that object and 1 am sure we may take the disinterested patriotism of both parties for granted. 'ln reference to your statement that there was no substantial body of public opinion suggesting a larger representation for the Opposition than three members in a National Cabinet of nine members, I would remind you that you yourself recognised the inadequacy of this representation by substituting the one contained in your , letter of the 27th inst. I am not i aware that the alteration was made | as the result of any expression of pubE lie opinion that could bo ascertained .by either of us. If your idea is that I the ratio of representation should he i based upon an expression of public opinion I would point out that this process might easily tend to defeat the very object you have in view. Yon speak of the great sacrifices that would have been imposed upon several of your colleagues by the acceptance of your first proposal. Necessarily, sacrifices must be made on both sides if a Cabinet is to be reconstructed on non-party lines for the public good, but apparently you have overlooked the fact that I and those associated with me would have bad to make sacrifices at least as great as those demanded of your colleagues. We were prepared to subordinate ourselves to the welfare of New Zealand and of the Empire and 1 should be sorry to think that you and your colleagues approached the situation in a less earnest spirit. 1 regret f cannot agree with the view you express in that portion of your letter dealing with the numerical strength of the two parties in the House nor with the deductions you draw from your premises. 1 lie effective voting strength of the Government party gives it a majority of one and to attempt now to differentiate between the Liberal members and the Labor members comprising the Opposition, while in your previous letter you treated the Oppo-sition—-and rightly so—as one body, cannot help to elucidate the position

or to serve any other useful purpose. It is obvious that no Government holding office tvit-lx such a slender majority could hope to administer the affairs of the country with confidence and efficiency in such a time as this without the assistance of me Opposition, and it is with a frank desire to give your Government this assistance I and 'those associated with me have- considj ered your various proposals. | ] You say that you were given to unI derstand*“t-hat- there was a very large I proportion of the Opposition members who would not under any eircumI stances consent- to support a National Government.” I can only reply that you have been misinformed. ItumI ors of this kind are scarcely worth ! discussing, but I can say with equal truth that I also was given to understand there was a considerable number of members on your side of the House unfavorable to the establishment of a National Cabinet. Only the future would have shown whether the good sense of members holding views opposed to a National Cabinet would liavo induced them to I place the country’s interests before their personal preferences.

You go on to say: “I think I am right- in saying that the- next .suggestion. came from yourself. It was that , there should be an equal number of European members on each, side, and 1, as Prime Minister, should- possess a deliberative and casting vote.” Tli is I accepted upon the understanding that the member of tile Executive representing the Native race should he requested not to exercise a vote, except directly acting upon his people. A little further on you say: ° "Hut- when, we met again you withdrew this offer.” This statement- you evidently made under a misapprehension of what actual!y occurred. It is quite correct that you discussed! a proposal upon those lines with me, but it was not my suggestion. You informed me you thought it the furthest your party would go. I expressed the opinion that the Opposition would not accept the proposal, but L undertook to submit it to some of the- leading members of the party. This I did. and .subsequently informed you that there was no probability of the proposal being accepted-. There was iio

withdraw:] on my part, because there was nothing for me to withdraw, and, as far as 1 was concerned, the reply to your last proposal was embodied in . my letter to you of the 2Sth inst. _ I made it clear - to you from the. beginning of the negotiations that I. could not ma-kei any definite'proposal nor accept any proposal, without first consulting the members of the Opposition. With reference to the last paragraph of your letter, referring to the portfolios of Finance, Defence, and .Railways, I may remind you that the "cntleman who- stands next to yourself in the Cabinet holds the portfolio of Defence and' Finance. The Minister

_pf Railways stands third in order. Iho question, of salaries lias m bearing at all upon the point, and 1 have inver given it tho slightest consideration. I think you will agree with me that it would be absurd to measure the importance of a portfolio liy the amount of salary attached to it at a time when wo are dealing with matters ol vastly more consequence. Apart from this, however, the proposal for a National Cabinet originated in the desire that the Government should he strengthened' at a time when a great national call was being made upon its services. The demand centred around Defence administration, and the provision, o money for carrying on tho war ana : meeting the financial exigencies ai ming out of it. It would be of littlo service to the country for the Opposition, through me, to agree to join a National Cabinet and its representatives to he allotted portfolios having no direct communication with these Departments. Your statement le•garding the representation of the Govern,merit or the Quo os it ion in relation to their numerical strmgth m tho Lower House does not correctly represent tho position, as it is well 'known that the policy of svery \*overnmeut is formulated in the Cabinet Doom, where the full representation of the members of the Ministry o* both. Chambers is, of course,. available. I notice that yoii question my statement as to tho serious condition of the finances of tho Dominion. ■ I am very glad to have your assurance that there is no ground for misgivings on this point, but the. information available to the Opposition and the public discloses a position which, in ,iny judgment, demands the most serious consideration from those, re-pon-siblo for "tli9 administration of the affairs of the country. It is net presumptuous on the part of the Opposition, I tliink, to’, believe that it? representatives might,. give you useful assistance in this respect. : ' t • ■- , Your suggestion that equality of re-

presentation would' produce a deadlock implies that such a. contingency, would bo overcome by a, majority of .Reform Ministers in the Cabinet. It seems to me that this arrangement would produce a condition of alfairs even move deplorable than a deadlock, and I cannot help expressing'.the opinion that, if a deadlock did arise, it would he better dealt with by a mutual exchange- of views thaw by the dominance of a single party. Your reference to the constitution of the British. National Cabinet is scarcely relevant to the position here, seeing that, prior to its formation, the Liberal Government had a- majority of over one hundred votes in the House of Commons and that the British National Cabinet has to consider great Imperial issues, which cannot be touched' by our own Parliament. I. am fully conscious of the needs of the country at the present time and of tho grave "responsibility that -rests upon myself and the other members of the Opposition.' I have already indicated 1 to you the direction in which our services might be advantageously employed, and I wish again to assure you that we should regard no sacrifice amino effort that can be reasonably demanded from us too -great to make for the promotion of the common weal of Now Zealand'and the Empire in the present great, national crisis.” “I remain, ‘‘Yours sincerely, (Signed) “J. G. WARD.”

STATEMENT BY THE PREMIER. NO REPLY IN DETAIL. APPEAL FOR UNISON* By Telegraph—.'•'•ooial Correspondent WELLINGTON. July 29. Tho Prime Minister was, seen by your representative at 11 o’clock tonight. He said that Ire had just received Sir .Joseph Ward’s last letter, and had only glanced over it hastily. Asked whether lie wished to reply to it, lie made a- short statement. “It- seems to mo,” he said, “that there is nob very much in. the letter to which I need reply, except the. statement that I attempted to differentiate between the. Liberal mem tiers and the Labor members of the presentOpposition. As a matter of fact, 1 did nothing of the sort, although it is well known that the Liberal party consists of 33 members, 'and that thei'O are six Labor members who do not belong to the Liberal party, but who arc supposed to be allied to it in opposition to tho present Government

“There is another paragraph in the letter which refers to a difference of opinion between Bit Joseph Ward and myself with regal'd to the suggestion that there should he an equal number of European members on each side, and that I, as Prime Minister, should have a deliberative and a casting vote. The Loader of the Opposition says that- the. suggestion came from me. I am equally certain that the, suggestion came from bun. and 1 suppose the matter must rest there.

“I do not intend to deal with the letter- in detail. It is not necessary that I should do so. I hope, however, that, whatever happens, both, parties and every member of the House will, for the- present session at all events, drop all political differences and refrain from any attempts to make party capital the one against the other, and that each and every one will do his best in this time of national trial for the Empire to which we belong arid for the country in which we lived’