THE BRYCE AFFAIR.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2249, 3 September 1891, Page 3

THE BRYCE AFFAIR.

W ELLINGTON, Sept. 1. Nothing has been talked about among the Opposition but the secession of Mr Bryce, There seems no doubt that Mr Rolleston is to succeed to the leadership. He has a difficult team in hand. The most ridiculous predictions are uttered. The country is going to rise en masse to avenge Mr Bryce. The New Zealand Times on Tuesday morning says :—The Speaker’s ruling settles the question on which there was a division of opinion in the House. After that ruling there must be agreement on all sides that Mr Bryce was out of order. The motion passed about his case has had the weight of the Speaker’s authority, the Speaker having decided that everything was done that required to be done before the resolution was passed. This ruling is the new fact in a rather complicated case, the fact which clears up the situation for the public, as it cleared it up for the whole House. Before this new fact was part of the situation Mr Bryce made up his mind to retire. We regretted his decision at the time. It was a decision arrived at without the advantage of the new fact. We regret very much more that this fact was not communicated to him by Mr Rolleston. Mr Rolleston declined to do so on the ground that the Premier waited his friend to be put into the position of a suppliant. That was an error of judgment. A man of the highest honor can, without any loss of honor, puch as implied by Mr Rolleston’s plea,

withdraw from any position he has taken up whenever competent authority, which he is bound to respect, declares that position to be untenable. Sir John Hall last night, pleading with an earnestness and emotion beyond praise, and worthy of the deepest respect, admitted after the ruling of the Speaker that authority had been vindicated. The Premier had pointed out another and pleasanter way of vindicating, namely, by the admission of Mr Bryce himself—an admission due from one in his position. Mr Bryce’s whole attitude was governed by the party character of the motion passed against him. The Speaker’s authority having given a different complexion to that motion, we cannot think that Mr Bryce would for an instant have refused to recognise the fact. The handing of the resignation to the Speaker was practically a refusal to submit to the Speaker’s authority. For that reason the House could not expunge the vote of censure. The result virtually declares that in the case of Parliamentary order the House cannot afford to be 1 is the first duty of the House to be just. Possibly the House might have agreed to the amendment if a division had come immediately after the excellent speech of Sir John Hall, but the absolutely useless speech of Mr Scobie Mackenzie settled the matter beyond all hope of recovery. His silence would have been golden, and his speech was by no means silver. The egotism of that speech prevented the error of a friend’s judgment from being rectified; but the result is for all that the right result, regrettable but right. The Post this evening has a leader, in which it compares Mr Bryce to a petulant schoolboy. It is generally admitted that the conduct of Mr Ballance at two great crises was admirable. When it lay with him to depose the Public Trustee, he discharged the unpleasant duty with a dignity and impartiality never excelled in this House. When, subsequently, he had to sustain the whole weight of the charge against Mr Bryce, he proved more than equal to the occasion. Mr Ballance has risen immensely in public estimation. A good many darts have been hurled at the Speaker, but I think it is admitted on all hands that he emerged from the Bryce affair with dignity. Had Mr Bryce listened to the ruling of the Speaker he would have retracted his words. That is the general, not the party, opinion. That Mr Rolleston’s precipitancy and Mr Scobie Mackenzie’s rhetoric ruined the cause of the leader’ of the Opposition is i now generally accepted.