THE DUCHESS’S FRIEND

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 69, 13 June 1927, Page 5

THE DUCHESS’S FRIEND

OUTBURST AGAINST AUSTRALIANS A writer in the “British Australian and New Zealander” says:—“In the ‘Daily News’ of Saturday, April 16, appeared the following: Colombo, Friday.—-Dame Margaret Greville (the Hon. Mrs. Ronald Greville), the well-known .London hostess and friend of Royalty, has caused quite a stir here by a surprising outburst against Australia, which country she has been visiting at the same time as the Duke and Duchess of York. (It was at Mrs. Greville’s home, Polesden Lacey, between Leatherhead and Dorking, that the Duke and Duchess spent part of their honeymoon.) Mrs. Greville is returning to England in the liner Cathay. In an interview with the newspaper men here she said: ‘I would not live among Australians for thousands of pounds. They are uncouth, they have no art, they take no interest in anything at all outside their own municipal and State affairs.' Discussing the migration problem, Dame Margaret declared: ‘The Australians themselves all want to get to the towns, and are leaving the country areas. They want the emigrants from England to go out to the backblocks and do all the hard work. Immigrants are not treated well there. There is no effort that I can see to make them feel at home. They are spoken of as “Pommies” and “Lowdowners.” I would most decidedly advise a man with a family, and without much money, against going to Australia. We send out a better type of men than they deserve. Ido not intend to leave the question as it stands. I want definite evidence and concrete cases, f»nd as soon as I get back to England I shall find a man without political bias and of independent mind, and shall send him to Australia to investigate conditions paying all his expenses for him.’ ” To those who have lived in Australia, not for days in the principal towns, but for years, and in outlying districts. Dame Margaret’s outburst is proof patent that she has drawn conclusions not only hastily, but from insufficient and entirely wrong evidence. She stayed in the wrong places, met the wrong people, applied the wrong standards, and misunderstood what she heard and saw. Unless this charitable view is taken, only one other conclusion can be arrived at, and I shall not be so unkind as to express it. There is a grain—just a grain—of truth in all she says. There are uncouth people, snobs, jingoes, and failures in Australia, as well as in England. London, and Mayfair. But to make a general statement from a partial truth is wrong and in itself proof of the utter incompetence of the person guilty of such procedure. If Dame Margaret Greville knew that the conditions of the country can be judged only after a lengthy and intelligent study of a vast country, and after a thorough digestion of statistics (having previously studied a good deal of economics), she would have refrained from making herself ridiculous by her anathemas. Having read her outburst, I doubt whether she is qualified to choose and find the right man to send out and report on Australia. Nor would it be an enviable task for a really competent man tc tell his employer the unvarnished truth after his inquiry was finished. And it is. furthermore, open to doubt whether, having been told the truth. Dame Margaret would admit that she was lamentably mistaken in her Colombo explosion.”