THE AGENT-GENERAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5438, 31 August 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE AGENT-GENERAL.

(From the Lyttelton Times, August 28.) We think that the Government have committed one of those blunders which are said to be worse than crimes, in passing intentional slights on Sir Julius Vogel. We refer to their nob appointing him a New Zealand Commissioner at the Paris Exhibition, and one of the New Zealand Consolidated Stock Commissioners. It may be said that these are more personal than public matters. ■ We do not for a moment admit the force of such a statement. Tho public interests of the colony required that it should have in both those capacities the best representative at its command. At tho Paris Exhibition the duty of that representative was to present New Zealand to the eyes of the whole civilised world in. a creditable aspect as one of the youngest but most rising colonies of the British Empire. His duty was, in tho presence of a congress gathered together from all parts of the globe, to make New Zealand known for her unrivalled capabilities as a for immigration, and for investment of capital, where industrious poverty can find a happy home, and where wealth can find safe and re.munerativo investments. No one could have fulfilled that representative function ‘better than Sir Julius Vogel. And then, with respect to the consolidation of New Zealand Stock. It is manifest that in that important work considerable public duties were involved. Those duties directly concerned the monetary interests and the monetary credit of the colony. Butevenifit were true,which it isnot,thatthere were no special duties attached to the respective offices, the personal element of the question should not have been disregarded. In. that view alone the course taken by the Government was censurable. Had all the duty required of the commissioner in either office consisted in sitting at a board, or in wearing a Court suit, it was improper to overlook Sir Julius Vogel, so long as bo held the position of AgentGeneral at London. If a country desires to be well served, it should treat its servants well in comparatively small matters, especially when they relate to the respect due to their public position. Any mark of degradation inflicted on them is not only an injustice to them personally and to the office which they hold, but it is a slight to the colony itself and an injury to it in public estimation. We have often found grave fault with Sir Julius Vogel, as a public man in this colony, but we have been glad to bear our testimony to the general admirable manner in which he has fulfilled the duties of Agent- General, aud to express our gratitude for the signal services which, while he has held that office, he has rendered by his writings and his speeches in refutation of attacks made against New Zealand, aud in able exposition of her policy and her resources. But, even had it been oiir painful duty to have blamed him throughout, we should have been the last to countenance any indirect' aud unworthy method of imposing on him pains and penalties in tho shape of personal indignities. We prefer tho more open and equitable course of blaming, specific offences, and of dismissing when dismissal is due. We propose to refer shortly to tho circumstances of tho two cases in question, so far as they are disclosed by Parliamentary papers and by Ministerial statements. We first take the Paris Exhibition. So long ago as March, 1877, Sir Julius Vogel as Agent-General was made by the Secretary of State for the colonies tho medium of communication between the Royal Commissioners, under the presidency of the Prince of Wales, and New Zealand. The late Government iu May, 1877, asked that an area for exhibits from this colony might be reserved in one block, floor space 80ft. by 60ft. The French authorities, on the personal application of the Prince of .Wales, granted the exclusive use of a tower—abutting on the Seine and tho principal entrance to the Exhibition—“for exhibiting ajseries of trophies representing the produce and manufactures of tho various colonies of the British Empire.” In December, 1877, the present Government wrote a memorandum to the Governor expressing regret that, owing to the fact that they took office late in the session, and that no steps had been taken by their predecessors to give effect to tho intended participation of this colony in the Exhibition, the subject has been left in abeyance up to a date which renders it hopeless to collect aud send to England sufficient exhibits to make a creditable appearance at Paris.” The final conclusion was to transfer the apace allotted to New Zealand to New South Wales, the Government of which colony undertook to tike charge of private exhibits from New Zealand. While we regret the fact, we cannot, under all the circumstances, blame the present Government for the conspicuous absence of New Zealand at theParia Universal Exhibition. But we do blame them for issuing in February, 1878, a Commission, appointing Mr. T. Purvis Russell to be a com- • missioner to represent New Zealand at that Exhibition, and of absolutely ignoring Sir Julius Vogel as a Commissioner for that purpose. We are told in a letter from Colonel Whitmore to Mr. Russell that “ this honorary appointment has been made under the impression that it would be agreeable” to Mr. Russell, “and secure the valuable assistance aud protection for New Zealand of so old aud influential a settler in the event of any circumstance arising in which they will be required.” Now, subject to the liability of arguing ourselves unknown we should like to know who Mr. T. Purvis Russell is that he should have been selected as the New,Zealand Commissioner, to the exclusion of Sir Julius Vogel. We believe that Mr Russell is an “old and influential” settler in the Waira-rapa, but we are not aware that he is either known in, or knows anything of, the colony outside that district, and we certainly regard his “ valuable assistance and protection for New Zealand interests” as utterly insignificant by the side of the services which Sir Julius Vogel, who happens to bo also our Agent-General at London, could have rendered. This wanton and offensive disregard of the personal and official claims of Sir Julius Vogel to the appointment conferred is not creditable to the Government, and must have been regarded by Sir Julius Vogel aa little short of a direct insult to himself. He is not likely to forget of forgive the mortification. Like Juno, in the case of another Pans, he is, no doubt, nursing his wrath— Manet alta mento repostum Judicium Paridis. sproteequo injuria forma 1 . The omission of the name of Sir Julius Vogel in the commission for the consolidation of New Zealand stock is, to our mind, a more serious public offence and a graver personal in* dignity. He was the original author of the scheme, He labored indefafcigably, both as Premier and as Ageut-Geueril, iu support of it. His energy and perseverance succeeded, iu spite of many adverse circumstances, in securing the co-operation of other Agonts-Gonoral, in overcoming tho objections of the Bank of England and the Imperial Treasury, and iu inducing the British aud New Zealand Parliaments to pass the necessary legislation. Lord Carnarvon, as Secretary of State for tho Colonies, when he moved the second reading of the Bill, specially recognised these efforts of Sir Julius Vogel. Moreover, as AgentGeneral, Sir Julius Vogel was eminently the man to be appointed as one of the Commissioners, The excuse given by the Premier for the omission is unsatisfactory. Ho stated that it was thought that Sir Julius Vogel was about to retire from tho Agency-General. This supposition was only founded upon private correspondence which cannot bo produced. Such an excuse is quite inadmissible. Under any circumstances, until the fetirement was officially known the offer at least of the appointment should have been made to Sir Julius Vogel. The course taken by tho Government was not only .wrong iu itself, but has had, if they wished to slight a political opponent, the contrary effect of enlisting iu his favor much public sympathy. Wo consider tho reported movement of some persons to ini* port Sir Julius Yo£el at tVeir own

into the colony and to “run” him for tho Premiership as a threat mistake, both as regards Sir Julias and themselves ; but it is, wo believe, directly attributable to the culpable blunder which tho Government have committed in making him, quite unnecessarily, a public martyr.