HEREDITARY COLONIAL HONORS.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1021, 10 January 1882, Page 4

HEREDITARY COLONIAL HONORS.

The Home News received by the last mail contains the following:—“ A rumour has been going the rounds that that it is contemplated to establish hereditary honors in some of the larger colonies. It is probably not without some foundation in fact, although the Government are not likely to give practical effect to the notion until it has been fully and freely discussed. There is much to be said against such a creation. The principle of general equality is too widely admitted in most colonial communities to allow of great solial hereditary distinctions. But the quarrel is mainly with the idea of their transmission. Colonial sentiment might be strongly against the formation of a permanent so-called aristocratic class, but it would hardly object to the bestowal of high social honors upon the most prominent colonial men. The establishment of life peerages would probably be less seriously opposed. Something of the kind is indeed wanted. After all, the grant of an order which carries with it knighthood and the permission to wear a star and ribbon round one’s neck is not a very lofty compliment. It may be said that the title of “My Lord ” is quite as empty, but after all the rank is much more distinguished and unmistakeable. But even if the creation of such colonial peers would be unpopular in the colonies themselves, there seems no valid objection to such rewards if bestowed upon eminent colonists who have elected to spend the rest of their days in England. We sincerely hope there is no truth in the rumour referred to by our English contemporary. We want no “ hereditary aristocracy ” in the colonies—England has suffered enough from those who claim power, authority, and privileges because of the accident of birth, and not because of the possession of brains. We are no Democrats decrying titles and honors. By all means let us have some outward and visible means of investing with honorable distinctions those who have served well their generation and their country. If a man has spent the best years of his lifetime in the service of his country, not only without personal aggrandizement but to the injury of his own pocket, it is right and fitting that his services should be acknowledged by some title of honor. But do not let the honors thus conferred become hereditary—handed, perhaps, from a noble father to a recreant son. Let our “ aristocracy ” be one of ■ brains and true worth —not one of mere money and title. Let a man have a title, but let it tell of his own efforts in the service of the public—of his own self-denial —of his own superior wisdom—not of the virtues or mental powers possessed by a remote ancestor.