Our “Very Own” W.P.

Southland Times, Issue 13504, 22 July 1896, Page 4

Our “Very Own” W.P.

(Hobart Mercury). . The extravagant eulogium on Mr Reeves, now Agent-General of New Zealand, by Mr Asquith at a banquet in London, naturally causes us to ask whether it be true that these colonies know not their greatest men ’ Something of the'same kind arises in the mind when we read certain dissertations in the English papers on Sir Henry Parkes, as to whoso actual work it is easy to see that the writers are by no means well-informed. VI e do not begrudge these honours, if honours they be, but it is impossible not to be struck with the extravagance of the assertions made when compared with- the actual, visible work done. Let us take one example from the career of Sir Henry Parkes. Ho published a big book, which professed to deal with the greater portion of the history of New South Wales, a subject which affords rare opportunities for wise, useful, and eloquent writing. Everybody praised and nobody reads the book, hardly a quotation has been published from it, and it is now as dead as if it had never been t written. With such an example as this before us, wc naturally incline to doubt other eulogiums, and begin to suspect that politicians at home have decided to treat the colonists as children, who are to be kept quiet by the administration of occasional pinches of sugar. And, when we come to inquire into the grounds on which Mr Asquith based his praise of Mr Reeves, we begin to-find that they are very slight, and, in fact, a mere assumption ot results which have yet to be proved. Mr Asquith was of opinion that the fact of Mr Reeves having brought about, in conjunction with his colleagues, a number of changes in New Zealand, was a sufficient warrant for such praise as could only properly be bestowed on a great statesman, who had been * the pillar of a nation’s hope, the centre of a world’s desire.” We are told that New Zealand has made “political and social changes with a rapidity unequalled by any other community,” which is true to a certain extent, but we are unable, for the life of us, to discover how this can constitute a good reason for the eulogium pronounced. As a matter of fact, great political and social chatiges have been made in Franco much more quickly than in New Zealand, especially at the time of the first Revolution, but it does not occur to anyone, not even to a Radical of the Asquith type, to pronounce a eulogism of Robespierre or Marat. Of course, the underlying assumption is, that all these socialand political changes are good,beneficial to the colony as a whole, but this happens to be the essential fact which remains to be proved. If Mr Asquith is one of the New Radical Party, as we believe that he is, which is going for the abolition of the House of Lords and “ Home Rule all round,” it is easy enough to understand why Mr Reeves finds so much favour in his sight, because the mere fact of having helped to make changes is a sufficient recommendation. Lord Lytton in one of his novels makes the shrewd remark that when honest men meet they areapt to quarrel,but rogues knoweach othernnd agree with wonderful rapidity. We fancy that this rule holds good in politics. The destructives know each otherat aglance, and emulate the character in “The Rovers,” crying “ a sudden thought strikes me, let us swear eternal friendship.” For naturally, except for this peculiar habit of mind, we should suppose that a responsible politican would enquire what had been the results of the political and social changes. Mr Asquith, however, is as inconsequential as the Nurse in Romeo and Juliet, who says:—“l will tell her, sir, that you do protest; which, I take it, is a gentlemanlike offer.” For, after all, we have nothing but protestations. Mr Asquith does not say that Mr Reeves has made two blades of grass grow where only one grew before, he does not hint that the people of New Zealand are better off than those in any of the other colonies, he does not cite new and flourishing industries, he does not tell us of moral or social improvement, he is content with protests, and founds his eulogy on the fact that Mr Reeves is a lightning political and social change man. To our mind, there is something mournful in all this absurdity. It is disheartening to think that mere change should be regarded as a good thing by so many persons in this world. So far as wo know at present, the changes made in New Zealand have not, on the whole, proved remarkable for the benefits which they have produced. We hear of the unemployed there, as we hear of them in other colonies, nor is it long ago since the emigration*from that colony was one of the things which was deplored. As it is, there are many emigrants trom that happy land to other colonies, and we do not find that New Zealand is attracting even her due share of population, considering the splendid soil and climate which she possesses. We have not heard the legislation which Mr Reeves proposed or helped to carry cited as an example elsewhere, even by the wild Liberals of Victoria, whose perpetual aim is to make something out of nothing. It may be that some day this legislation, these social and political changes made with such rapidity, may make New Zealand a new Utopia, but it would be well to wait for results before we lavish praise. As a matter of fact, much of this rapid legislation has been proved to be foolish in the extreme, some of it of doubtful utility, while other portions have done the very things that were nqt desired. The actual effects of such changes as have been made will not be understood, probably for many years, and when they ate understood, it will be time enough to pronounce our judgment on those who have made them. We should think that even Mr Reeves himself must have seen the absurdity of the situation, and must have wondered at the simplicity of the Home politicians, or have felt humiliated at the discovery that they believe that colonial public men can be so cheaply bought. As for these experiments in New Zealand, they are on their trial. Judging by the history of the (world, which is about the only guide worth following, they are not at all likely to produce the benefits supposed, and how far they will prove beneficial, and not actually hurtful, is a question which cun only be determined by actual experience. These are, let 'it be understood, nothing new. Much more crucial ones have been tried again and again, and have failed or succeeded according to the form and pressure of the time. Two tyrants of Syracuse sent for Plato to guide the State, but they did not like him when they got him, and he saw no chance of carrying out the fine things which he has set forth in his Republic. Sincejthen innumerable experiments in fatherly and grandmotherly legislation have been tried, with such results, that for many years there was a predominant party in Europe which has reached the conclusion that the very best thing that the State could do was to do as little as possible. There has been a reaction against this, and, once again, it has been decided to see what the State can do in the way of social, moral, and economical legislation. What it can do, it strikes us, depends more upon the people themselves than upon the State, and what can be done depends, also, on a great variety of circumstances. Fifty years hence these colonies will have many more to add to the already long list of experiments that have failed, amongst which we may expect to find a fair proportion of the legislation for which Mr Reeves so recently was the subject of an astounding eulogy.