The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE. SATURDAY, OCT. 31, 1891.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3011, 31 October 1891, Page 2

The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE.

SATURDAY, OCT. 31, 1891.

Eapial and exact justico to all men, Of' wh.-itsnn.7cr state or persul sion, religious or l.nk-ir:,l.

The Premier has recently been • . • ' : i : !-irtr« mmit.inars in (lit- ■•■ - :i •hi , -1,1 >|iy , inrl hi- ~,..,....» ~, lir.u xil'MUWhlt' ~,, >>l |i'i:llg In (li'feud .-.■. ,-u .■ iml his policy before ; i ■ e etZn*. In each of his , ic.'chos Hi , B' illuußO has referred to wkut, is uow known us "the Bryce episode," and has endeavoured to justify the contemptible conduct which characterised his followers on that occasion. In all liia reforences to this matter, there is apparently tho conscious weakness of a man who is defending an unworthy ca.uso, and who is arguing against his' awn sonso of what is right. The Premier states that Afr Bryco hud ro-fused to withdraw words which Lvtd boon doukrcd by tho Snoabw nn being unparliamentary, and' had thus acted in complete deffaico of the tliß ohair. What n. misora bio exhibition of insincerity we hnrve hore ! Mrßallanco carefully refrains from saying Tho it was who don/anded Mr Bryco to withdraw his Words ; in the uopo, wo imagino, that .some people may infer that it was the Speaker who ordered him to do , so. Again, the lnttnr portion of

his statement is only half tho truth, nnrl thcrnfovo is ontirnlv mislofidinsr. It is true, as Mr Ballancn pays, that the Spfifikor nonsirlorofl that tho first portion >f Mr T-Sryce.'s seiitcuco was unparlisininntary, but when lie luicl hoard tho snntencft complete thfin ho no lon»er consiclorerl them was anv cause for his intorfurence. Mr Ballance would have come much tiparer the truth if he had stated that M'r Bryce had refused to withdraw his demand and that of M'r Scddon and admitted as the Speaker himself admits that Mr Bryce was never desirod from the chair to withdraw his words. Mr Bryce has himself made the whole position very clear in a letter which has been published in the columns of a contemporary, and we trust some member of the House will next session ask for, and endeavour to obtain definite information from the Speaker on these points, which have been so much discussed. The Fremier probably natters himself that ho has successfully deceived the electors and is congratulating himself on his adroitness. We believe people are not so easily deceived and that as it is from a man's conduct in little things that an estimate can be formed of his character, so it will be found that the deception and the ungenerous spirit, which "the Premier has displayed throughout this matter, will pervade the whole of his actions as a statesman. In referring to this subject on a former occasion, we remarked, that there appeared to be two courses open to "the Speaker.-who is clearly primarily to blame in the matter, namely, either to bring pressure to bear on the Government to make them rescind the vote of censure or else to resign. We confess we are surprised that this course of action has not been more generally advocated by the Press. To a man of any honourable feeling thoSpeaker's present position would be simply unbearable. It is, however, necessary in estimating the Speaker's conduct to consider his former position and surroundings and in reviewing these it would of course be absurd to expect Mr Steward to have anything approaching the same knowledge of the conduct which usually obtains amongst gentlemen as Sir Maurice O'Rorke, and we should think that Mr Steward is painfnllv alive to the fact, that he is entirely unfitted for the position he occupies. To some extent ho is to be pitied. He is naturally a weak man without any force of character, he has been placed in a position which by his previous training he is quito unqualified to fill and ho finis himself a mere puppet in the hands of Messrs Taylor, Seddon, and Co., who usurp his functions when and how they please until he has practically lost control of the House.