South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1883.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3331, 5 December 1883, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1883.

The spirited and combined action of the Agents-General of the various colonies of Australasia, in protesting against the Eecidivistes Bill in the French Parliaments highly creditable, and reassures us as to the real usefulness and zeal of our representatives at Home. We cannot, from the colonial standpoint, entertain a very high opinion of Lord Derby's fitness for the important post of Secretary of State for the colonies. He appears, indeed, to be eminently unfit for the office. He has displayed throughout the Annexation and Pacific Island controversy, a cold, unsympathetic reserve, not at all justifiable under the circumstances, and not at all calculated to augment the loyalty of the colonists. The unfitness of the Earl of Derby for bis post in the Cabinet, seems indeed to afford a strong argument in favor of the colonies being represented directly in the Imperial Parliament, and having some voice at least in the selection of a Secretary of State for the Colonies. There are men whom all the colonies, with one consent, would designate fit and proper persons for this office, and it is a great pity such men cannot be called to the head of affairs. If we mistake not, the Agents-General will have the support of a very large section of the English people in their protest against the Eecidivistes Bill, and the shelving of the Annexation question. There can be but one opinion, as to the undesireableness of having the Pacific constituted a place of banishment for European criminals. Not only would the islanders be subjected to gross illtreatment, but the colonies woald always bo harassed by a stream of vagabondage flowing into them. If some action is not taken by the British Government in this matter, the colonists will soon evince a very natural discontent, and the harmony that should exist between the colonics and the Mother Country will be somewhat marred.

It is rumoured that the Poet Laureate is to be raised to the Peerage. There is no doubt that Mr Tennyson has served his Sovereign mistress well, and

there is no reason why he should not be rewarded with a peerage, if the Queen chooses to bestow it—-though why the immortal John Brown should have been allowed to die a commoner, while Alfred Tennyson is made a peer of the realm, is not quite apparent. Both were servants and both were well paid servants, —the one was a personal attendant, the other a Court flatterer. We really cannot understand, unless on the grounds we have mentioned, why Mr Tennyson should be made a lord. Not assuredly for his genius, since even his greatest admirers will hardly designate him a genius. His mind sails along within sight of genius, but does not reach it. There are other persons who would be found to have a a prior claim for reward, if an investigation of claims were made. No, the peerage in Mr Tennyson’s case is an unearned gift from his Royal Lady. When he dons his coronet, he must forego much of his reputation among literary men. In the republic of letters there should be no bauble titles ; no man’s literary fame could be enhanced by a sounding title, and it does not raise him in the estimation of the world or his confreres, when he condescends to accept one. Titles are not the rewards that genius craves.