THE FIRST DIVISION

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 448, 4 February 1933, Page 4

THE FIRST DIVISION

The result of the voting upon the seconcl reading of the Banks Indemnity (Exchange) Bill shows that the Government has been reduced to a very narrow margin in its snpport of this important policy measure.. The division list shows that the safe majority of ten confidently relied upon has been reduced to eight. But it must be remembered, when counting heads upon the division upon the exchange legislation that it is not the crucial test of Government strength in the House. Members who have voted against the pegging of the exchange have still left the back door open for a judicious retreat when the Labour no-con-fidence motion comes to the issue. A very interesting instance of this precautionary attitude is afforded by the utterances and actions of Mr. Downie Stewart. He has informed the House and the country that he is bitterly opposed to the raising of the exchange rate and he points with no uncertain finger to the approaching , disaster which he claims will follow the adoption of the Government's policy. In support of his very definite opinions upon this question he has recorded his vote with the opponents of the bill, but having gone thus far he is not prepared to go any further. If it comes to a question of the welfare of the country (as he sees it in connection with exchange) versus the retention of oifice by the Coalition Government, he is apparently, prepared to vote with the Government. His excuse for this attitude is that the placing of the Labour Party in office would not necessarily mean that it would be in power. It is a specious sort of argument which is hardly worthy of such a sound thinker and open speaker as Mr. Stewart, but it is largely illustrative of the attitude of politicians today. Mr. Stallworthv, another ex-Minister, has also developed a semi-righteous complex. In a letter to the Prime Minister he has declared his "absolute independence" to act as he thinks fit on the merits of all measures submitted to the House. But how far will this disgruntled exMinister go? He is no more independent now than he was before his outburst of indignation over exchange. He will be in the same p-addock as Mr. Stewart, but without his prestige to cover the insincerity of the break. It is a decidedly quaint situation. Mr. Stewart as an ex-Reform Minister and Mr. Stallworthy as an ex-United Minister have both tolcl their chiefs that they are convinced of the iniquity of the exchange manipulation, but neither the discarded Liberal, nor the dissatisfied Reformer, are prepared to make an armed demonstration against their erstwhile leader s. If it came to a testing up of principles it would probably be found that the Prime Minister would be more likely to vote with the Labour Party than either of them. Mr. Forbes has given a reply to Mr. Stallworthy which is decidedly appropriate and he shows the country what he thinks of a party baekslider with no definite objective. However, the final test is yet to come and we may be able to judge more accurately the courage and firmness of principle in the opponents of 'the Government when the crucial division bell rings. In spite of Mr. Stallworthy's protestations of righteousness we feel sure that on the no-confid-ence division he will be found tailing up his old chief, or else be listed among the missing.