THE LATE HON. J. BRYCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 17, 21 January 1913, Page 3

THE LATE HON. J. BRYCE

10 TH« IDItOB. Sir, — It was with feelings which I can scarcely express that, as a- personal friend of the late Hon. John Bryce, I read your sub-leader on.' Saturday evening under the heading of "A Notable Pioneer." • I refer to your criticism of his- action in retiring from politics on account of the vote of .censure, passed on. him for the sentence ,'of his speech (which was interrupted by the Premier) "The Honourable the Premier ought to' be ashatried' of himself." Without discussing the questionable taste of making- an attack' upon a man 'not now able to defend himself, I would confine myself _ to -disputing your contention that a public 'man has r.ot the right to deprive his party and his country of his serviced. It is admitted that the, vote of censure was a purely party one, and if the people are prepared to elect as their representaI tives members who would go to such an extent for party purposes as to agree to pass a vote -of' censure on a, man of ' Mr. Bryoe's character and , record for ' a remark which, is' certainly not, likely to be considered unparliamentary by the majority- of sane persons, all I -can say is that the public do not deserve the services of such a man. _ Under the circumstances any member is surely quite justified in 'deciding to retire itota public life and look after his- own affairs as Mr. Bryce did, if he so -desired. Your concluding paragraph that "His departure from the political arena must serve as a warning, rather than an example to- the world •' is, I consider, an, uncalled-for reflection on a man who has done so much for; the • country of his adoption:— -I am, etc., . . • ' "A 'BELIEVER IN DECENT • POLITICS.' 1 - , Wellington, 20th January, 1913. ' [We regret to have hurt our correI epondentV feelings, but see ho reason' for qualifying the criticism to which he objects. The paltrier -tlje action' of those who censured Mr. Bryce, the more imperative- his "obligation to treat, them with the contempt they , deserved instead of playing into their, hands by resigning. To say that because a Parliamentary majority unjustly censures a man of high character and unblemished record "th« public do not deserve the service of such a 'man" may or 'may not be true j but it really does not- affect the issue. The question .is not what' the' public ckeerves, but what the individual owes. Did not the shabby action of the majority emphasise the public's need for the service of a man. of Mr. Bryce's -character and capacity, and thus increase his obligation to render it? Much as' we admire our correspondent's chivalrous championship of his friend, w© feel auro that for him, as for hie frietid, the smart of a cruel injustice has obscured the judgment.*! '