The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1911.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3301, 21 August 1911, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1911.

There is much of considerable interest "‘lni the cabled interview with regard to Imperial matters which the Prime Minister has just, given upon reaching Hobai't. As regards Sir Joseph Ward’s own offorts at the late conference of Empire statesmen, opinions will naturally differ a great deal. Perhaps the most glowing tribute to, his work at Home is that which is contained in a series of powerfully written character sketches of the leading minds by the special commissioner of tlie “Standard of Empire.” “A fervent loyalist, with an unassailable belief in the future of his own race whether in New Zealand, in Canada or in the British Isles Sir Joseph Ward, Bart., was,” ho declared, “in many ways the leading figure at the Imperial Conference. Indeed, he showed himself to bo far in advance of most if his fellow Prime Ministers as an Imperialist prepared to carry his ideals into practice. Genial and stuave, Sir Joseph is a man of considerable force of character. Nowadays public men seem to be ashamed of confessing to ideals. Sir Joseph Ward’s healthy belief in his convictions strikes a refreshing note in an age that threatens to become blase. In conversation he strikes one as a man who combines idealism with a practical habit of mind—qualities which are the essence of statesmanship. For what distinguishes a statesman from an ordiary politician but tlhe fact that he possesses imagination ? The man who propounded a scheme for a working Imperial Council, and who presented a Dreadnought to the Imperial Navy, is no ordinary politician.” But it also fell to the lot of Sir Joseph Ward to arouso the harshest criticism. Here, for instance, is a good sample (taken from the “London Sunday Times”) of some of the most violent remarks of which he was made the target. “It was unfortunate,” says that journal, “that Sir Joseph Ward should have got off the rails with his proposal of something in the nature of a Parliament of Empire. A Parliament of Empire is moonshine; all that we are in the least likely to get is a Cabinet of Empire—a development of the present Conference. A Parliament is an unwieldy and usually ignorant body, -which is clumsiest and! stupidest in just those functions for which we chiefly need a common council—foreign policy and defence. Our Council of Prime Ministers, on the other hand, being a combination of Governments, might be expected to have the necessary knowledge and efficiency for joint action. Moreover, a Parliament would rob the Federal States of certain rights, while our Council of Prime Ministers would depend upon, would found their authority upon, the rights and the autonomy of their respective States. The fact is that we might say of Sir Joseph Ward what Matthew Arnold said of Lord Byron : in the region of thought lie is a child. In 1907 lie was the staunch follower of Dea'kin and Jameson; when in 1911 he had to stand alone he showed himself a sad fumbler. Such lawyers for the prosecution as Sir Wilfred Laurier and Mr. Asquith found his arguments and proposals mere child’s play.’’ For our own part we feel that all fair-minded people will acknowledge the importance of the part which Sir Joseph Ward took at the conference. That he was not nearly as successful as he would have liked due only to the difficult nature of the problems with regard to which he sought to bring forward a solution. To many the praise which he has earned is completely overshadowed by the fact that he agreed to accept a hereditary title. But that, as Kipling would say, “is another story”—and discussion upon tlie point might reasonably be deferred until tlie Premier is himself heard on the matter.

Kind and Unkind.