WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 8, Issue 122, 24 May 1916, Page 6

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

the address-in-reply. SPEEDING UP. (Special Correspondent). • < v rrj.v.un WELLINGTON, May 22. Sir Joseph Ward’s speech on Friday afternoon very well might have been allowed to conclude the Address-in-Reply debate —which, of course, was a purely formal and superfluous proceeding from beginning to end —but the Minister of Internal Affairs was bent upon having his say and in having it he managed to ruffle the feelings of several members of the Labour Party. Mr. Russell set out in a critical mood. Pie began by scolding Mr. Duddo, whom he had understood to say the Government had failed in its duty to returned soldiers; but upon the member for Kaiapoi pointing out that hi s remarks had applied only to the provision of suitable land for the men he apologised and turned his attention to Dr. Newman, who seemed to enjoy the Minister’s conern over his “inconsistency” as keenly as did seme other “old hands” in the House. The Labour members did not take their lecturing quite so philosophically. Whether they were more annoyed by Mr. Russell’s eulogy of the Minister of Defence or by his allusions to themselves it would be difficult to say, but both Mr. Webb and Mr Hindmarsh severely strained the forms of the House in giving expression to their feelings. Mr. Webb thought Mr. Russell’s remarks had been “cruel and cowardly” and Mr. Hindmarsh plainly got over the line by denouncing the Minister as “a miserable cur,” a figure of speech he had. of course, to withdraw with a profession of penitence.

MR. ALLEN’S APOLOGISTS. Apparently Mr. Russell’s main purpose in carrying the debate over from the afternoon to the evening sitting—and incidentally depriving the House of the “night off” it ha dbeen promised —was to pronounce a somewhat laboured eulogy of Mr. Allens’ services as Minister of Defence. His tribute ‘o his Reform colleague’s industry and honesty was not so extravagant that : t need have jarred on the ears of the narrowest partisan. Mr. Allen’s industry and honesty have never been in dispute. They are obvious to everyone. But it was on quite different lines that the criticism of the Minister proceeded during the debate and without the speeches of Mr. Massey and Sir Joseph Ward it would have been inadequately answered. Public opinion a couple of years hence will not judge Mr. Allen so much from the blunders of his department at the beginning of the war —the canteen muddle, the Trentham scandal and the rest —as it will from the rapid organnation of the main body of troops and the regular dispatch of well-trained and well-equipped reinforcements. As a matter of fact the Minister is no more and no less responsible for the early mistakes than he is for the latter triumphs, the initiation and the administration being for all practical purposes in the hands of his executive officers, but if lie is to have the blame for failure he must in all fair--ocF piso have the credit for success. This is th e point which Sir Joseph Ward made with the most chivalrous generosity towards his old opponent.

THE PARTY POSITION. The most notable feature of Sir Joseph Ward’s own speech was his insistence upon the suspension of party squabbling while the Dominion with the rest of the Empire was passing through a great national crisis. He did not pretend he liked the arrangement the war had forced upon the country. He did not even repudiate the opinion he had expressed when he was being urged to join forces with Mr. Massey ten months ago—that the Secret Defence Committee, with enlarged powers and increased responsibility, might do all that could be expected from a National Cabinet. But being in the arangement he defended it with characteristic spirit and loyalty even to the length of sharply rebuking some of his own political friends, whom he thought had gone beyond the bounds of legitimate criticism. If he betrayed a little warmth in one or two passages of his speech it well may be excused. A member of the Labour Party, who cannot be ignorant of the facts, has persistently represented him as being to blame for the inadequacy of soldiers’ pensions and for the delay in the appointment of the Board of Trade. The truth is that it was largely due to Sir Joseph’s efforts that the pensions were not fixed on a lower scale than they actually were by the Act °f last session. while the delay in the appointment of the Board of Trade was a .matter entirely to do with the Minister of Industries and Commerce. In *heso circumstances Sir Joseph might have been pardoned had he protested much more vigorously than he did.

SHORTENING THE SESSION. The Prime Minister’s announcement that, on Tuesday he will move that Government business shall take precedence on Wednesdays suggests that Ministers, having allowed the Ad-dress-in-Reply to drag its weary length through the best part of a fortnight, are going to make a serious effort to shorten the session. Just hew far they will succeed depends upon the compliance of members. Mr. Massey’s old party supporters, with one or two exceptions, are as well disciplined as ever they were and if their leader were particularly anxious to prorogue Parliament next week they would give -him every possible assistance in doing sc. But there are earnest spirits on the other side of the House, no more anxious to spend the winter in Wellington, who will not think their whole duty done when they have given unquestioning consent to the Government’s war measures. They argue with a good deal of reason that the suspension of party hostilities affords a unique opportunity for discussing such, questions as education and local government. The Ministers in charge of the departments dealing with those subjects are not specially burdened with war responsibilities and they very well could give Parliament a lead while Mr. Massey and Sir Joseph Ward go about their more pressing business. Whether the leaders like it or not, members will insist upon discussing agood many subjects that are not on the ministerial programme before they return to their homes.