THE CABINET CRISIS.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 August 1917, Page 1

THE CABINET CRISIS.

HON. HENDERSON EXPLAINS.

FURTHER DETAILS

[men ruijss association: —copyright.]

fAUSTRALIAN &■ N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION]

LONDON August la

-Hon A. Henderson continuing his explanation of his resignation, in the Commons said the full story regarding the .Stockholm Conference could mu not he told at present. He would await the time when it would he possible to state the facts without injury to national'interests, but the press attacks forced him to deal with certain events regardless of the consequences.

He had advised tho Labour Party on June 25th. to accept tbp invitation, to go to Stockholm. His visit to Paris, has been discussed at a special meeting of the Cabinet the day before his departure. He had wired the Labour Party’s decision to Mr. Lloyd George who was then in Paris. Mr. Lloyd George and bis colleagues stood convicted of having intimated to tne House that the arrangements for the Paris visit were made without their knowledge.

Dir. I.joyd George intefjected: “Trip only wire 1. received said that you were coining'' to Paris with the Russian delegates and Mr. Ramsay Mac) Donald.”

■ Mr. Roiuir Law also interposed : “Mr. Henderson's colleagues had no intimation of It is intention in Paris until tlie arrangements were made. They clearly expressed disapproval of the visit.”

Mr. (Henderson replied: “It does not alter the fact tint ttlie War Cabinet at a special meeting discussed my visit.”

He an.non need at that meeting the Labour Executive’s decision to recommend acceptance of the Stockholm invitation. Tlie opinion of tlie Cabinet was sharply divided. As all bis eollennges had opposed lie bad offered to resign. He explained to Air. Lloyd George his opinion regarding a eonsulntive conference at Stockholm. After his return from Paris Mr. .Lloyd George has invited him to a special Cabinet. He was kept waiting outside for fully an hour. Then MrBarnes was sent out to make a statement. Mr. Henderson said to Mr. Barnes: “J do not do business in this way,” and added that he was either a Cabinet Minister or lie was not. If the former lie would talk in Cabinet Mr. Barnes conveyed the message and Mr..- Henderson was admitted into the room. Mr. .Lloyd George explained that lie had been kept waiting out of re gard for his personal feelings. Tie had protested at the treatment. Mr. Henderson complained that lie, had not been given an opportunity to state in Cabinet his reasons in favour of the Stockholm Conference. Cabinet had already received the Crown Law Office advice against participation He suggested an immediate announcement of the decision if the Government proposed to act on it; also, he would resign, if Cabinet acted on the decision. The Labour Minister 'had consider that the Labour Conference should not bo fettered by the Law Offices advee.

Mr. Henderson denied that lie had been requested to announce the Government’s position to Friday’s Conference. He would have resigned first. Mr. Lloyd George in In's lotter bad said that if ho (Mr 7 Henderson was committed to go to'the Stockholm Conference ho ought have resigned, llis speecli on Friday was simply an impartial statement of the Labour Executive’s view. He spoke as the Labour Secretary and contended that lie gave the conference a correct summary of the Russian Government’s position. He had been censured for not stating that the Russian Government bad opposed' a mandatory conference, lie had impressed that on the conference. If a telegram had been received from. M. Kerensky on Friday, lie bad not received it, but while waiting in the Premier’s Secretary room after tlie close of the conference lie was told that M. Kerensky in a telegram bad disassociated himself from the Stockholm conference. He had received ■? letter from Mr. Lloyd George on Friday when lie was quitting the platform.

, Mr. Henderson explained that lie bad not read Mr. Lloyd George’s letter ter to tlie conference, because lie nail already informed the conference that Russia’s position regarding the Stockholm Conference had been notified. “Cabinet was aware that I resolutely favoured the Stockholm Conference,” be continued. “Mr. Lloya George’s letter suggested that J should have resigned, knowing the adverse views of my colleagues. , If 1 bail resigned before the conference, the vote in favour of the Stockholm Conference would have been larger enabling it’tq be said that it was not a vote on merits but on Mr. Henderson’s resignation.” MR. LLOYD GEORGE REPLIES. Mr. Lloyd George said that lie did not intend to reply "to the trivialities comprising three-quarters of Mr. Henderson’s speech. All the members of the Cabinet had understood that Mr. Henderson had changed his mind. He had intended strongly to oppose the Stockholm Conference and to state the Government’s position. If Mr. Henderson had done the latter be would 'have greatly influenced the Labour Conference against tli Stockholm Conference. Replying to Mr. P. Snowden, Mr. Lloyd George refused to state who wrote tho telegram received on Friday. His letter to Mr. Henderson on Fride.y was sent in good time and should have readied him in good time. At all events >lr.Henderson could have read it to the conference before the vote was taken. It would have made a substantial difference'in the voting of the vast majority of the conference. Nothing ‘ could be more fatal than ftfeh a con-

fereuce with the enemy at the very moment when the Russians’ first step at the restoration of discipline was to prevent fraternisation of the. armies at the front. 'The English, French Italian, and American Governments ban agreed on .this, view and bail decided that peace terms, if discussed, must bo discussed by the leptesutatives of the whole nation. He was the last man to disparage Labour’s power, but Labour was not the whole people. When peace came to he made it must he made by the nation as a whole. Britain would not lie doing her duty to the Allies, especially to Russia if she concentrated on a sectional peace. UNFORTUNATE CONTROVERSY' LONDON August 13. ■ Hon. H. 11. Asquith said that he -regretted the. unfortunate controversy. There undoubtedly had been some misunderstanding and the disclosures showed the impossibility of the Minister fillinga dual capacity. A conflict of interest must eventually arise. The only peace that would satisfy the Allied peoples and recompense them for their sacrifice was a peace a proved by the peoples of all countries concerned. He would be sorry if a;s the result of the debate it. should go forth to the world that Labour favoured going to Stockholm to pave the way for a precarious and dishonourable peace. Labour by its declaration of policy showed that it was determined to pursue the war to the end. I here was no doubt about Labour, except an insignificant minority.