PREFERRED DEFEAT TO DISHONOUR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18889, 12 October 1929, Page 2

PREFERRED DEFEAT TO DISHONOUR.

SIR LITTLETON GROOM GIVES INSIDE HISTORY. (Special to the “Star.”) TOOWOOMBA, Septemb.-r 28. More secret history was reveah d by Sir Littleton Groom last night when he opened his campaign and gave nis reasons why, as Speaker, he d»d not vote to keep the Government in office. He claimed that the revelations made by Mr Bruce did not tell the whole story. Mr Bruce, he said, did not mind it the office of Speaker was damaged so long as the Government was saved. Sir Littleton was loudly applauded when he proclaimed at the end of h.s address that he preferred defeat to dishonour. Sir Littleton said that when the Prime Minister asked him to vote he replied that such action would do serious injury to the office of Speaker. Mr Bruce replied in effect: Would it not be preferable for the offit e of Speaker to be slightly damaged »han an injury happen to the Government and the party. Mr Bruce, said Sir Littleton, hed omitted this when making public details of the interview. It had always been the practice of the House of Re-; presentatives to adhere as closeiy as possible to law’s, customs and traditions of the House of Commons. The position of Speaker in the Ho.ire of Commons was regarded in the highest light. Michael M’Donough, in his cook, “Pageant of Parliament,” said: “Tire Speaker, like the King, is supposed to have no politics. That has »;.*come almost a recognised constitutions! principle.” The same writer pointed out, also, that the position had been lifted so high above politics that participation in debates while the chairman of committees was in the chair would not now be tolerated in the Canadian Parliament. The Speaker carefully abstained from taking part in any matter, party controversy or debate. The high character of the office of Speaker, said Sir Littleton, would be highly impaired should the Speaker take part in party matters in committee. The confidence of the House was necessarv to enable him to carry out his duties. It had been Australia’s proud boast that they stood by all the traditions of the Empire, including traditions which had made the mother Parliament the great example to the civilised world. He had acted conscientiously and in the best interests of Parliament and the nation*. To have done otherwise would have been to commit a breach of the best traditions of the Chair. He could find no other instance in the history of the Empire where party organisation attempted openly to penalise a man because, while Speaker, he had acted as he believed he should act, according to his duty and as his conscience dictated.

Sir Littleton said he had been told that, by failing to vote, he had disfranchised his constituenc}'. Had he voted, would the same critics have taken the view that his’ action was a proper one? He had grave doubts. In every Parliament in the Empire the Speaker’s constituency is affected by the acceptance of the office. It wasrather late in the day for criticism to be directed against a man for accepting so high an office. He would not, even at the request of the Prime Minister, do what in his opinion was a degradation of the office. He had been blamed for causing the election, but the blame lay at the door of those who managed the public affairs in such a way that they found themselves in a minority. The accusation was as foolish as it was childish.

Speaking on arbitration, Sir Littleton Groom said he had always advocated Federal arbitration. At the last election not one word was said by the Prime Minister to indicate that without consulting the people he would introduce a measure to abolish the whole system. At the last election the Nationalist Party stood for a continuance of the Federal Arbitration Court Every Parliament in the Empire was facing industrial problems. The attitude of the Government was more extraordinary when it was remembered that, under peace treaties associated with the League of Nations, members of the League agreed to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, in all countries.

What right had the Government to ask members to totally disregard a pledge to the electors to continue Federal arbitration ? The verv bisis of representative and democratize government would be endangered if members could go back on a declared policy, and repeal laws they had been elected to support. The real intention of the Maritimes Industries Bill was to destroy the whole fabric built up during the period of 25 years. So momentous a step could only be undertaken with the consent of the people.