THE NEXT SPEAKER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18272, 13 December 1922, Page 10

THE NEXT SPEAKER.

MR. WILFORD'B POSITION.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE

INTERESTING SURVEY.

A telegram published yesterday from the Herald's Wellington correspondent suggested a possible solution of the problem of the effect of the general election upon the party situation. It was simply a statement that Some of Mr. Wilford's friends suggest that it may fall to Mr. Wilford to give tho decision of the question whether the party now known as Liberal or the Labour members shall be recognised as the official Opposition—in other words, that Mr. Wilford Jumself may be Speaker of the House wnen the question comes up for decision. On this question " Old Gallery Man writes:—"Had it not been for the fadt that his present position as Leader of the Opposition seemed to suggest that he was out of the running because he had other political fish to fry, Mr. Wilford would have been tho first name in the minds of all who have been long connected with Parliament as that of the man for the Speakership. As a matter of fact, he is the only man now in Parliament who has had experience qualifying him for the office. I well remember the session of 1909, when, in the Ward Government's term of administration and Sir Arthur Guinness' Speakership, Mr. Wilford held the office of Chairman of Committees and Deputy-Speaker' of the House. In no year of a long experience of close observation of the House was Committee of the Whole better governed. Mr. Wilford was prompt and clear in every ruling, firm but fair in his maintenance of order, just in holding the scaleu between contending parties —in fact, in the eyes of even critics politically' opposed to him he came as near the ideal of what a chairman should be as is humanly possible. Line of Municipal Life. " Many of us at that time regarded Mr. Wilford as a coming Speaker—as the man who would probably hold the office o? chairman by sheer merit and skill until Sir Arthur Guinness should vacate, whether by death—as unfortunately happened—or by resignation, and then succeed to the Speakership. It seemeu likely then that Mr. Wilford would take Eride in qualifying to become whafr mignt e called a " professional Speaker " —one who, like Sir Maurice O'Rorke and Speakers Peel, Gully, Lowther and others in the House of Commons, were above and outside party, making themselves professionally expert guides and controllers of the House in its deliberations, and trusle'd by all political strivers alike. Unhappily for this expectation, the lure of municipal life came in Mr. WilforSVway. He held for a time the two posts of Mayor of Wellington and Chairman of the House. It wiis found that he could not give proper attention to the duties of both at one time, and Mr. Wilford, for some reason, chose to resign the chairmanship and stick to tha Mayoralty for, I think it was, two or threa years. In politics he took a subordinate place in the Ward Party, ariu Ministerial office did not come his way until he was made a member of the National Ministry in war-time, when he filled with credit to himself the position of Minister for Marine. " But Mr. Wilford still has the qualification which stood so well to him ib 1909. He is a lawyer, and that is almost a sine qua non with a successful Speaker. Though Sir Frederic Lang can be cited as a layman who filled the post as capably as could be expected of any layman, it is still true that the legally-trained mind is generally necessary to the nicetieß of Interpretation for which Mr. Speaker is called upon almost daily. Mr. Wilford has a commanding personality, and would be fearless in checking an obetreporous or obstructive member. And, incidentally, his relinquishment of his present partisan position would remove almost the last obstacle from the fusion of the Reform and Liberal parties. Such cohesion as the Liberals have at present is largely due to adhesion to a tradition—the tradition that they were once followers of Mr. Seddon and Sir Joseph Ward, and that as they formed a separate party they must still do so, notwithstanding that times have changed and policies with them. Slight Lines of Demarcation. " Can anyone deny that the Reformers of to-day are more liberal than the Liberals of 30 years ago? Have tney HoT travelled further along the path of social legislation than ever Mr. Seddon or Sir Joseph Ward did? True, we are told that they were bitter antagonists of the laws to which they are now stepfathers, but is it true? If they did oppose the old age pensions in their origin, was it the principle or the then form of the pension they resisted? Did they not oppose it mainly on the ground that at first il was only charitable aid in a new guise? Was it not their contention that the pension, when granted, should be the reward of thrift, and not merely of poverty per se? And haven't they advanced since then * long way toward that ideal? And so also with regard to State loans to indivduals —it was the method rather than the principle that was opposed by the Reformers when in opposition. " When all is said and done, the lines of demarcation between Reform and Liberalism are of the most tenuous kind: those between Reform-Liberal on the one hand and Labour on the other, as Labour is now directed, are as mountainous barriers. Any old Parliamentarian requires little imagination to see Messrs. Sidey, Forbes, and Isitt, and other prominent Liberals ranging themselves permanently behind Mr. Massey, and loyally supporting him. And Mr. Wilford's acceptance of the' Speakership would be a deciding step in that direction."