The Press. MONDAY, MAY 18, 1911. An Exploded "Expert."

Press, Volume L, Issue 14970, 18 May 1914, Page 6

The Press. MONDAY, MAY 18, 1911. An Exploded "Expert."

Tho Hon. Mr Allen was severe in his strictures upon Sir J. G. Ward's latest confused defence of his attitude on tho question ot naval policy. But nobody can honestly say that Mr Allen wa« too severe, or that tho case of the Leader of tho Opposition did not call for plain speaking. In their anxiety to prevent naval policy from being made .1 party question by the Opposition, Minister., have hitherto treated their opponents too generously. If it is a tact that the Leader of tho Opposition has no clear ideas on a question of high importance, which ho insists upon discussing as if ho really wero an authority on tho subject, that fact can bo stated without injustice, and ought to be stated. When he set forth in 1911 his scheme for an Imperial Council or Parliament—-he never knew which of the two ho meant—his colleagues at tho Imperial Conference, by asking him a few pertinent questions, convinced themselves and made it plain to everybody else, that his mind was in a complete state of muddlement. That he was, -nd is. in tho same case over the naval question he has himself proved by his angry reply to the Hon. Mr

Fisher's short and clear reminder that

the tenor of his present criticisms is en-

{ tirely discordant with tho tenor of his ideas as set forth at the Conference of

I 1911. Then ho was in favour of a levy j of £-500,000 a year on the people of this

country; to-day he is complaining of

the enormous extravagance of tho far ojoro modest proposals of the present Government. If he had merely said that, he iiad chanced his mind, he would

not cut quite so poor a figure us ne does at present. But whatever ho may think on the financial is.-ue. ho can offer no excuse for his statement that New Zealand, under the Government's scheme, will lose its

connexion with the Imperial Navy. The Reform Party would no quite ready to

go to the country on the issue of loyalty, for there is only one reply which the country would make, to a party which claimed that Mr Massey and his colleagues aro traitors to tho Empire and desirous of cutting the painter. The patriotism of the Government will hardly be thought a matter

urgently requiring examination, or worth discussion, but that such singular charges should be solemnly preferred by the Opposition will be taken as the clearest evidence, not only that the. ''Liberals" have sought to make the naval question a party issue, but aro prepared to risk injuring our Imperial interests for party purposes.

Tho Leader of the Opposition is anything but an authority upon Imperial matters. He made that plain, as wo have said, at the Conference of 1911, and as in his Marton speech ho practically claimed that he outlined a schemo which must be adopted, and which really will bo adopted in some form as a settlement of the Irish question, wo may bo allowed to recall the discussion at the Conference. His motion proposed tho establishment of " an " Imperial Council of State, with re- " prcsentatives from all the self-govern- " ing parts of the Empire," and before ho had proceeded far he was talking of an "Imperial Parliament of Defence." When Mr Asquith noted this confusion Sir Joseph Ward replied that ho "did " not mind what tho name was." 'Thoy

"are practically synonymous, you think?" Mr Asquith grimly asked, and the speech proceeded. Very soon, however, tho confusion and inconsistencies of the speaker becanio too much for tho other Prime Ministers, and they took him in hand very kindly but very firmly, with the result that he was told over and over again that he was incomprehensible. Even his most faithful supporter will shrink from suggesting that tho fault lay with Mr Asquith and tlie other Prime Ministers. That Sir Joseph Ward was ignorantly meddling with a largo matter which generations of political philosophers had approached vitij car© and,caution, waa bo plain to the Prime Ministers, that they made of the debate a means to enlighten a colleague whom, personally, they had doubtless found a very pleasant person. To everyone who has read iho Conferenco Bluo Book, nothing is moro painfully evident than that Sir Joseph Ward had no .clear idea ojf any sort on tho question ho insisted on discussing, unless It is that his colleagues were thunderstruck that such confusion of mind should be' possible in any Prime Minister. No doubt Sir Joseph Ward, who actually spoke at Marton as if he were tho inventor of somo fine new scheme, really thought he had hold of some new idea. His proposal was old generation. before he made it, but he has read little, and knows less, of Imperial political history. It is altogether too absurd that a perpetual currency should be allowed to the idea, which is held by so many "Liberals," that Sir Joseph Ward is a competent authority on tho larger publio questions. His own forgetfulness of what ho proposed in 1911 respecting naval defence —in respect, not only of th© maintenance of warships in New Zealand waters, but also of tho financial responsibilities New Zealand could assume—must have convinced everyone that even on this subject his views, being quite unformed, aro quite valueless. Evon in the matter of New Zealand feeling ho is ■withi out any clear views, or he would not have displayed anxiety to assure tho I public that the nation as a wholo did

not pay for the Dreadnought. It is high time that his claim to know more than the average man where Imperial matters aro concerned was recognised as having no foundation at all.