SIR J. G. WARD'S BARONETCY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1220, 31 August 1911, Page 4

SIR J. G. WARD'S BARONETCY.

ME. TAVOMEY EXPLAINS. [To tho Editor.] Sir,—l believe I am responsible for [Tie statement that in accepting a baronetcy Kir J. CI. AVniil would have to settle ,£30,1100 on his eldest son. ] attended the presentation of a testimonial to tho Into Mr. Seddon in the Canterbury Hall, Chrislcbnrch, iiiiiny ytars ago, and amongst those present was tho lion. Mr. Godfrey, a member of tho Legislative Council of Victoria. Mr. Godfrey was well advanced in years, and desired to return to his hotel before the function was over. 1 accompanied him, as he did not know his way. Mr. Seddon was then on tho eve of leaving lor England, and Mr. Godfrey find myself discussed what ''honours would 1)0 conferred on him. 1 lield Hint as ho had previously refused a knighthood, a barornetcy would ho conferred on him, but Mr. Godfrey told me this could not bo done, unless he couM settle .E30.000 on his eldast boh, and instanced the case of Sir William Clarke, of Melbourne, who had been created a baronet. To mo Mr. Godfrey appeared a cul-, lured, well-informed gentlomau, and no far as I can remember ho told mo ho was an English barrister. I therefore accepted Mr. Godfrey's statement as correct', more especially as he cited the case of Sir W. Clarke. And whoa writing on, tho baronetev conferred ou Sir J. G. Ward I made, uso of tho information without ever dreaming that it could give him offence, or injure him publicly or privately. Other papers copied tho statement;. Sir .Tamos Carroll was in Temukii tho same day, and that is its whole history. 1 can assure Sir .1. G. Ward and his friend? that in giving this publicity I was actuated by no other motive than that I believed I possessed information which others did not, and used it to add interest to my paper. No other thought entered my head, because 1 diil not think then, end do not now think, Hint to accent a title and settle .£.10,000 on one's «.n constitutes a crime. I have never heard of anyone who found fault with Lord Roberts or Lord Kitchener, or a great many others for accepting titles. If to accept a title for services rendered on the battlefield is not wrong, it cannot bo successfully argued that to accept a title fur services rendered in the domain of politics is a crime. AVe may question the methods employed by tho"politician to secure the title, tmt as a principle I hold that there is no wrong in accepting it, __ No doubt it was to me Sir J. G. AAara referred when ho wed the knightly terms that it was "a vicious and intended to bo a malicious statemc.it." I can assure him that lie did me an injustice. Not only do I sec no wrong in accepting a title, but. my opinion is that no nia.n in this country is better entitled to "tho easy with dignity" of the High Commis-, sionorship. Sir J. G. AVard is evidently determined that none of his old friends shall go near him. Ido not want to. T am publishing this statement lo put the truth before tho public. As for my viciousne-ss and maliciousness; there was n time when Sir .1. G. Ward did not think me so, but I ceased to bo of uso to him, and lie ceased to set, any value on me I have now reached the ago ' when passion waits upon the judgment. Iu a few years at the best I shall be gone, and a Wile later Sir J. G. AVard will liavo to follow me. It is therefore not worth my while to quarrel. I shall only sav good luck to him, and God-bless him. Good citizens should always pray for their n.lers.-I am, etc., m^vomeYi Temuka, August 29, 1911.