A CHAT WITH MR. FROUDE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7267, 4 March 1885, Page 5

A CHAT WITH MR. FROUDE.

Me. James Anthony Froude, the distinguished historian and man of Letters, arrived yesterday by -the mail boat from Bydney. He is accompanied by his son, and is staying for the present at the Northern Club. Having visited Australia, Mr. Froude has come to New Zealand to spend a month in making himself acquainted with its general features and manifold natural wonders. He returns • to England by the next mail steamer, via San Francisco. In the course of a conversation yesterday with a representative of this journal, he expressed himself with great freedom on a number of a interesting topics, and although we. do not profess to reproduce his language, the following may be accepted as a substantially accurate report of what he was good enough to say to our representative :—

" I have come to New Zealand," remarked Mr. Froude, to see one of the most interesting parts of the world. Oh, no ; I do not mean to deliver any lectures. My movements at present are somewhat uncertain. We have not yet fixed on any definite programme. . But we shall go to the Hot Lakes, of which we have heard' some wonderful accounts, and we shall try to see as much of New Zealand as time will permit of. My visit to these colonies has long been meditated. Ten years ago I had made up my mind to come out to these parts of the world, but my duties at the Cape interfered with my intention, . and prevented me from carrying it out. What I have seen in Australia has, . I must admit, greatly surprised and pleased me. I have seen everywhere indications of luxuriant prosperity and national vigour. The English, Irish, and Scotch out here are thriving with extraordinary vitality—like seed placed in rich and virgin soil. They are, too, free from the questions which rend and agitate older communities. Here you have not dynastic questions to distract you, or revolutions to fear. On religious subjects you agree to differ. Your labourers are paid eight shillings a day and are content. They may well be. . The land question at borne is just now occupying great attention. The acquisition of great estates is being loudly denounced. But I find you have your great landowners even here. ' In New South Wales some of them own very large estates —in some cases larger than an English county. They are spoken of as good or bad landlords as the case happens to be. Of course you have'nt the law of entail. I think you have done a wise thing in abolishing the distinction between landed and personal property in succession. I should like to see it done away with at home. But even there its effects are probably exaggerated. Primogeniture is a custom, but not a law. It is almost similar to what obtains in Massachusetts, and I believe in other States in America. When a man reaches the age of twenty-one, he can entail his property for a certain number of years. Of course in England, when a man dies intestate-, his property goes to his eldest son. But then any man can make a will and dispose of his property an he pleases. By the way, I notice that eiir Stafford Northcote's motion ol censure has been rejected in the House of Commons by a small majority. What do I think of the result? Well, I would say it is a crushing blow to the Ministry. The figures show that there must have been a very large number of Liberal abstentions— probably 100— and of those who voted with the Government, I dare say a good many voted for party considerations and against their own consciences. The Radical party have been against the Egyptian policy of the Government all along. Men like Sir Wilfrid Lawson and John Morley have opposed it from the first. Mr. Morley is a bosom friend of Mr. Chamberlain, and I should be inclined to believe that Mr. Chamberlain in his own heart disapproves of the policy of the Government. And really, what is their policy ? I confess I am perfectly in the dark as to its aim or object. They went to Egypt, and they have now gone to the Soudan. But what it all means I am at a loss to know. Mr. Gladstone must know very well tjhat England can't undertake the task of setting the world in order, and interfering in foreign countries for the purpose of re-establishing peace and good government. Mr. Gladstone may have been dragged into this Egyptian business ? Very likely. Yielding to popular clamour and newspaper opinion he sent Gordon to Khartoum ; it then became necessary to send an expedition to his relief; and now prestige demands, I suppose, that further steps should be taken. And it is not only treasure that will be spent ; lives will be sacrificed. Thousands of Arabs will be slaughtered. And all for what ? I am sure I don't know. Mr. Gladstone ought not to have allowed himself to be "dragged" into Egypt. A man of his commanding power and influence ought to be able to control circumstances ; he should not have allowed circumstances to control him. If he coald not do so, if he was unable to withstand the influence brought to bear upon him, his duty was to have given way to some one else whe could have successfully controlled circumstances. One thing, however, is clear from the division in the House of Commons. He has rejected the terms of the Irish party. There can be no doubt that on the eve of the division they made overtures to the Government offering to vote with them on certain conditions. What those conditions were I cannot, of course, say. They may have been Home Rule or the repeal of the Coercion Acts; but whatever they were, Mr. Gladstone evidently was unable or unwilling; to accede to them. You say he must draw the line somewhere, that he has granted enormous concessions to Ireland, and that he must stop somewhere. But as I conceive it, his whole Irish policy has been a frightful mistake. He has dealt a fatal blow to Protestantism and its political influence in Ireland —the Upas tree, as he described it. I know the Irish question thoroughly. I know the country and the character of its people as well as any man, and I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Gladstone's policy has been a mistake. My views on this subject have been expressed in my writings. They are, as you remark, pronounced ' and may not be popular, but I believe them to be correct. It might be best to grant the Irish Home Rule, and see what they can do with it ? Perhaps it will come to that. It would not surprise me were such a thing to come to pass. But what would England's position - be were, anarchy to ensue in Ireland ? ' The Irish are unfit for Home Rule. They are a brave, generous, and military race. They make the best soldiersand policemen iutheworld. They are devoted and loyal to their chiefs, but I do not think they are fitted for representative institutions. The fact is to be deplored, no doubt, but that is my opinion. I will say this, however, for generations Ireland has been wretchedly governed. You ask me about the probable effect of the extension of the Franchise. It is impossible to say. The last Reform Bill was described as a leap in the dark, and the same may be said of this one. As to the question of Imperial federation, I would counsel the colonies to act with caution and deliberation. The matter is one rather of feeling than of practical polities, and I should be sorry to see the colonies, acting under a transient wave of sentiment, do anything precipitately, which would bring them under the rule of Downing-atreet, and which, after this wave of feeling had subsided, in all likelihood they would repent of. At one time I was in favour of colonial representatives being made life peers and Bitting in the House of Lords. I believe such a proposal would have been entertained by the English public. But I am inclined to think now that it would not answer. You have not, for instance, a sufficient number of able men to be able to spare them for such a purpose. It is a pity, however, that the colonies Have not some one at home of commanding influence and official status to speak to . the English people with the voice of authority on all questions affecting the colonies. It is not the Government or the House of Commons which rules now. It is the English people, and public opinion as exrpessed through the newspapers. If the colonies had each such a representative to appeal directly to the English people and to public opiuion the results would be eminently beneficial. I am quite certain that had the Cape Colony had an official representative of acknowledged weight and ability to have spoken to the English people and explained matters to them, the mistakes of the last ten or fifteen years would not have occurred. What do I think of the annexation question? It seems to me that some of the colonies are assuming a position in this matter which is scarcely justifiable. The language, for instance, of Mr. Service is hardly calculated to bring about the deaired result. Besides, the argument on which his whole case rests is such as no Colonial

Secretary can be expected to a.iopt. For what, after all, is it that the Home Government is asked to do? It is to establish in these seas the Munroe doctrine for the purpose of excluding Foreign Powers, and preventing them taking possession of the unclaimed islands of the South Pacific. That is asking a great deal. I think Lord Derby is quite right in refusing such a request." If I were the Secretary for the Colonies," added Mr. Froude with a smile, " I certainly would not listen to it." Mr. Froude will probably visit Sir George Grey at the Kawan before leaving the colony, and on Friday he leaves for the Hot Lakes. After " doing" the wonderland of New Zealand Mr. Froude will return to Auckland.