The Press. TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1914. The Opposition and Naval Policy.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14971, 19 May 1914, Page 6

The Press. TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1914. The Opposition and Naval Policy.

One of tho principal newspaper apologists for the Leader of the Opposition explains that ho is a rapid and obscuro speaker, and • that it is ' "discreditable" to report him accurately, and unfair to criticise him when in his haste and confusion he makes statements demonstrably contrary to fact. Wo do not

know how far, therefore, wo may criticise his Marton speech without infringing the extraordinary rule of fairness imposed upon us by our "Liberal" friends. But the plain man will accept the published reports of that speech as accurato in all essentials, especially as

it contains misstatements of fact of a typically "Liberal" sort. Ono of thoeo

misstatements calls for some particular notice.. The Government, he said, had "forced a scheme fof naval defence]

"through Parliament without any

"authority from the people." This criticism is very absurd, coming from ono who forced many schemes through Parliament without.consulting tho people, and wlio committed this country to,the largest item of expenditure in

its history without consulting either

tho people or Parliament. But we do V not .urge as - a de,fen<ee of the Govern-

merit the saying about Sataa and sin j for sin is sin, and anyono may indict the sinner. Tho Government's defence is that Sir Joseph Ward's statement is not true. Tho Hon. Mr Fisher, who has so effectively exposed the Leader of the Opposition's pretentions to authority as a critic where uaval defence- is concerned, points cut that Sir Joseph "Ward omitted to tell the audience at Marton that the Naval Defence Bill passed its third reading in the House by 32 votes t-o 10. and that the Bill passed the Legislative Council without any division of any kind, although the great majority of the Councillors were appointed by tho "Liberal" Administration. In its latest issue, the " Round Table" complains that there was on neither side any proper discussion of the Bill, but that, r,o far as it is true (and it is not quite true), is evidence, not that the Bill was "forced " through tho House," but that it was not resisted by tho Opposition. The Opposition cannot complain if their Leader's unfortunate error sets some people thir.kins upon the difference between the behaviour of tho Opposition when tho Naval Bill was in the Houso and their behaviour when the Bill repealing the Second Ballot Mas under discussion. It would not be unfair to conclude—indeed, it is a fact—that tho Opposition aro not greatly concerned over big Imperial questions, but are ready to fight to the last gasp for the retcntiou of a shady electoral eystezn which they think may help them to hold their seats. Their charity and their statesmanship begin at home: their scats more intimately concern them than does Imperial defence. The contrast between their per-functory-opposition .to the Naval Defence Bill when it was m the House and their present simulated excitement over the new scheme, has an obvious explanation : tho excitemeut is humbug, It is a pity, however, that they cannot dispense with misstatements of fact, and foolish misrepresentations of tho nature of the scheme. . ,