The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5299, 20 March 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1878.

The ignorance which generally prevails in the mother country regarding almost everything pertaining to the colonies has frequently been the subject of remark. However, if that want of knowledge continues, it will not be through any lack of efforts on the part of colonists to acquaint the English people with the position and doings of their brethren in the Southern Seas. Scarcely a mail arrives but wo are informed that some eminent colonist has been addressing large and influential audiences on the wonderful growth of the Australasian colonies, and the advantages which all of them hold out, for the surplus labor of Great Britain, and as a profitable field for the investment of British capital. The late Mr. Edwakd Wilson,’ one of the proprietors.of the Melbourne Argus, was an arduous worker in England in bringing the colonies under the notice of the public. It is worthy of remark that several returned Australians have held some of the highest positions in the old country, notably Mr. Robert Lowe and Mr. Childers, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the latter First Lord of the Admiralty. Both these gentlemen had previously occupied places in colonial Legislatures, and the kno rvledge of this has done much to elevate the character of the Australian Parliaments in the eyes of the British people. It was the fashion at one time to look half contemptuously on the men who were selected by the colonists to make laws. But when Melbourne could produce a Childers and Sydney a Lowe, the British people were led to believe that the colonial Legislatures were not altogether made up of ignorant men who had begun life as bullock drivers and lucky diggers ; but that in the Colonial Parliaments were to be found men who would be a credit to any deliberative assembly in the world. Neither Mr. Lowe nor Mr. Childf.es towered above their fellow' legislators in New South Wales and Victoria, and it is not too much to assume that there are many men in the .colonies fully their equals in ability and culture. , About a dozen years ago Mr. Higinbotham, who was then Attorney-General of Victoria, stated the General Assembly of that colony wpuld compare- favorably man for man with the House of Commons. His remark was ridiculed at the time, and in fact afforded material for a standing joke at: the expense of the members of the General Assembly. But there was really nothing extraordinary in the remark, and it was, certainly less ridiculous than the extreme opinions, expressed by those who seemed to take a pride in decrying the merits of the man who had bean’ chosen by colonists to! do the work of legislation. The Colonial Institute, which was established some time ago for the diffusion of information regarding the colonies, is a very useful institution. Amongst its members are some of the foremost men in Great Britain, and many subjects of high importance to colonists are from time to time discussed. Men who are thoroughly identified with the colonies take part in those discussions, and it is pleasing to see that the colonial visitors are’able to hold their own with the foremost talent of the mother country. The question of Chinese immigration was brought under the notice of the Institute in a paper read by Mr. Macalister, who is perhaps the most prominent public man in Queensland, and a debate followed. The “colonials” showed remarkable ability in discussing this much-vexed question. In breadth of view, choice of words, and knowledge of the subject, the Australians were fully on a level with the eminent Englishmen who took part in the debate. Now, circumstances like this cannot fail to have a beneficial effect in raising the colonies in the estimation of the influential classes in the mother ) country. It is not unfrequently the case that a nation is judged by the character of its public men. Australians need have no fears of the judgment pronounced upon them through the character of the representative men who have visited the mother country. At the gatherings to which we have referred, the arguments used on behalf of the colonies are of secondary importance' to the effect produced by the ability, culture, and respectability of the speakers. Sir Daniel Cooper is amongst the eminent colonists now at Homo, and we notice that he recently delivered a lecture at the Royal Colonial Institute on New South Wales, giving a sketch of that colony from 1788 to 1876. No man should be better able to give a history of New South Wales, for he has been a resident of the colony for close on fifty, years. Many of his remarks on Now South Wales would equally apply to New Zealand, or any other of the Australasian colonies. Sir Daniel said:—“ There can be no mistake about it that Australia’s greatest want is people. And why on earth people stop in this country to be starved, and in a miserable climate, I cannot understand. Nobody admires the English more than the colonists; they are more British than the Britons ; but why the English stop here to starve is beyond my comprehension. You will hear young people say, ‘ Oh, the days for fortune-making are past.’ I would go there as a young man to-morrow, and I could live and make money, and grow rich again. It wants prudence, perseverence, and hard work ; not people who go • to pick ■ up money in the streets without work. No doubt at all that in those colonies there is as fine a day now as ever there was if people would only go out and use their energies, a little tact,: judgment, and perseverance, and they would succeed.” There is much truth in these remarks ; but Sir Daniel is over-sanguine when ho infers that'’ prudence, perseverance, and hard work are certain to .make: the fortune of anyone in these colonies. These, j no doubt, are the chief elements of success; but we have, known able, men to exercise all the above virtues, and still 1 remain comparatively poor. Any man who is willing to work in' these colonies can support himself and his family comfortably, can always keep away the wolf from the door, and has a fair chance of rising in

the world. But it is absolute nonsense to say that fortunes are within the reach of all, and nonsense too which really does harm to the colonies. We are perfectly satisfied . that no part of the world offers as great inducements to the industrious man as Australasia. An excellent climate, short hours of labox’, high wages, and cheap food are surely sufficient inducements for the crowdedout toilers of the mother country to come here, without successful colonists uttering unfeeling rubbish that it only requires perseverance and hax-d woi-k to amass a fortune. It is a failing with those ,vho are themselves wealthy to imagine that they have gained their position solely through the possession of qualities not possessed by their less fortunate neighbors. It is a frequent remark of well-to-do men that if they became poor they could soon get rich again. However, it is a fact that when a great reverse is met with by a wealthy man he alters his tune considerably. As for Sir Daniel Cooper, he made his money, we believe, in the easiest possible manner. He obtained immense ai’eas of territoi’y in New South Wales in a time of fearful depi’ession for a mere song, and of course he had only to stick to his land to become a very wealthy man. He deserves every cx’edit for the faith he displayed in the progress of the colony, but then people are justified in attributing his success as much to good luck and to the exceptional circumstances he was placed in as to any very, extraordinary display of prudence, perseverance, and hard work.