THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1921. A KITCHENER PORTRAIT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18323, 13 August 1921, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1921. A KITCHENER PORTRAIT.

Upon the title page of his book on Lord Kitchener, the publication of which is just announced, Lord Esher gives the clue to his purpose and to his point of view. Perhaps everybody will not find the subject altogether inviting. A volume entitled “The Tragedy of Lord Kitchener” may appear rather suggestive of a turningback of pages which many would as lief see undisturbed, a plumbing of depths which not a few would be content to leave unfathomed. However that may be, if the attempt to illuminate clearly that period of tragedy;—for tragedy it must have been—which may be said to have closed round the great soldier’s latter days had to be made, certainly Lord Esher may bo trusted to offer a competent presentment of facts and circumstances, of political influences and psychological considerations. We can hardly suppose that his picture of Lord Kitchener at • the War Office up to the time when the warrior went to his death on board the ill-fated Hampshire supplies fresh revelations, since much has already been written on the subject, but Lord Esher had personal opportunities well qualifying him for the, literary task which he has chosen to undertake. We may assume that the - value of his biographical effort*lies in the management of light and shade, the interpretation of the central figure, the winnowing of the false and superficial from the essentia! and the real. If Lord Esher has succeeded in a design to environ Lord Kitchener’s reputation and achievement in the performance of his last great I

task with the light of clearest appro* ciation and understanding, then we need ngt doubt that he has done veil. He comes before tne public as one who should say “Here I am to speak what I do know,” and while the cabled excerpts provide, of course, no indication' of the merits of his book, Hbey do show that it is not lacking in touches of intimate arid melancholy interest. The great achievements by which his career was marked in establishing the foundations of the Empire abroad had presented Lord Kitchener to his countrymen as an heroic, picturesque, and inscrutable figure. If there was a tendency to hero-worship in the general admiration extended fto his attributes, it was certainly pardonable. Possibly when the storm broke in 1914, and the fate of the Empire hung in the balance, there may have been a general expectation that in organising and directing the vast military effort required of Great Britain Lord Kitchener would reveal 'himself as veritably the superman visioned in' many a legend associated with his remarkable career. With the Kitchener of the Soudan the nation was then, as it is now, familiar. With Kitchener in control at the War Office in the hour of the nation’s extreme need it had yet to make acquaintance. Lord Esher seeks to make clear the measure in which the capacity of the man was attuned to meet the difficulties of the situation in which he was placed. What the use of the word “tragedy” implies in connection with Lord Kitchener’s handling of his enormous responsibilities is not to be disguised. What a wealth of significance lies in the statement that he “was at a disadvantage in collective action and for this reason his colleagues did not accord him their confidence 1” This is the theme upon which the author particularly enlarges. It was a critical period, and attack and controversy, misunderstanding and want of confidence clouded Lord Kitchener’s era of control, almost bewildering “the native hue of resolution.” The Orient had passed info his blood, and its aloofness, thereby paving the way for a final tragedy of loneliness. But his countrymen will remain well content to remember his greatness at his best, , his vigorous response to the call of 1914, and the achievements of the armies that bore his name. Probably Lord Esher’s new book contains no passage more admirable than one which he penned shortly after the loss of the Hampshire. It reads: “Long before the northern seas engulfed him his countrymen had declared their judgment about Lord Kitchener. In strength and integrity he had stood for twenty years upon a rock of popular confidence among the shifting sands of parochial politics, and amid the conflicting storms of international conflict. In him the Empire knew' that it possessed a reserve force against the day of emergency or distress: and when that day dawned in *unpreparedness and indecision he vindicated the people’s reliance upon his energy, and fulfilled their belief in his spirit of counsel and might. Detraction cannot harm him now, or envy obliterate his fame. For all tima Lord Kitchener is enshrined as the legendary figure of the Great War.” GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS. It was a necessary incident of the war period- that Governments generally enlarged their functions and became involved in trading undertakings either directly or indirectly through the exercise of control of the business. The results of the experience will ultimately be valuable to the public, though in some cases the lessons have been exceedingly costly. One outcome of Governmental interference in trade is that it has become possible to define more accurately than before the limits within which the State can successfully or at least satisfactorily assume business responsibilities. The experience has shown at the same time that it is exceedingly difficult to restore freedom of a trade which has for any reason become subject to bureaucratic control. The appetite of Governments for power has grown by what it fed on. Members of Parliaments are now endeavouring to wrest uack from them some of the powers which Governments seek still to exercise. At the present time Governments dare to assume powers which prior to the war they never dreamed of possessing, and the ordinary member of Parliament has, as a consequence, become in many important public matters an insignificant cypher. The departments of State have similarly become infected with a desire for increased authority. The net results of this usurpation of authority, this invasion into the realm of business, and this disregard for the rights of the people can now be safely and accurately appraised. The common excuse for all extensions of Ministerial authority was the necessity occasioned by the war, but the circumstances have now so materially altered that only in comparatively rare cases can departures from wellestablished lines of State policy be admitted to be valid. When the British Government recently sought for power to add articles to the list of those taxable under statute Sir F. Banbury sagely pointed out that such a power was an invasion of the taxing privileges of the House of Commons. “Don’t tell me it was done in the war,” he said. “Many foolish things were don© in the war, and the war is now over.” The' abolition of the control of coal and the prospect of the discontinuance of the butter subsidy are hopeful signs of the re-establishment of free trading in the dominion. Coal control was permissible and necessary only during the war and at a time when there was a distinct shortage of the commodity, but the need for it passed away long ago. Nevertheless, it was apparently very difficult to restore normal conditions of trading because of the reluctance of the Government to relinquish control. It has been perfectly apparent, also for a long period, that the subsidy expedient, as applied in the case of butter, is costly and misleading. The system is misleading because in essence it is a hollow pretence in that it purports to give the public cheap commodities, whereas, as we have already pointed out, it may really add to the cost of those commodities. There is one ground on which Government interference, either in direct ownership or control of business, might be justified if the facts showed the existencfe of that special ground. If the Government possessed greater sagacity or greater business acumen than is found in those who are engaged in business, then it could claim to be . >■s

the all-wise gaardian of the rights of the community. But the facts are all against Government interference. This applies to ownership in most cases and to control in nearly all cases. Almost every coal dealer in New Zealand can, if required, quote examples of unwisdom in coal control and even in Government purchases of coal. Moreover, it cannot surely be contended that the Government’s ownership of the sugar supply is an unmixed blessing. Sugar has been falling in the world’s markets for some time, yet the price remains the same in tho dominion. It would be interesting to know, therefore, for how long the Government proposes to stave off the announcement of a reduction in price in the hope of realising on its highpriced stocks. In the absence of the subsidy and of Government control butter would at certain periods have been actually cheaper than has been the case. At the present time in a free market th© people would be saving something like 2d per lb plus the cost of administering the subsidy system. Judged fairly from every standpoint, and particularly from the point of view of good government, the less the State in business the better for the community. In the light of the past the American slogan, “Less government in business and more business in government,” merits wide endorsement.