The English papers threaten us with the possible hostility of England. They must pardon us for doubting it. The enmity of England we should of course be sorry to incur. But we know our neighbours well enough to see the wide difference there exists between their words and their deeds.

Now what is the opinion of the colonies on the subject. New Zealand has been credited with approving the scheme suggested by the Government, and it was so stated by Mr. Osborne Morgan in the House of Commons only a few weeks since. That such, however, is not the case the following letter plainly shows:

The Premier of New Zealand to the Premier of Victoria.

Premier's Office, Wellington: March 5, 1886.

Sir, I have the honour to inform you that on receipt of your secret and confidential telegram on the 26th of February, and as my colleagues were not then available for consultation, I addressed a letter to our Agent-General, in it giving my views on the subject of the New Hebrides, the part of the letter dealing with which I now enclose for your information. Since then the Cabinet has fully endorsed my action, and it only remains, therefore, for me to convey to you the assurances of this Government of their willingness to co-operate with you and the other Australian Governments in the endeavour to prevent so undesirable a result as the acquisition of New Hebrides by France.-I have, &c.

The Hon. the Premier, Melbourne, Victoria.

(Signed)

ROBERT STOUT.

The reasons that will induce the colonies to refuse their assent to the present proposal are thus summarised by Mr. Stout in his letter to the Agent-General for New Zealand, dated the 27th of February,

1886:

1. The New Hebrides have been practically looked upon as a British possession. 2. They have been the seat of the Presbyterian Mission in the Pacific, and any advance they have made in civilisation has been due to that Church.

3. It is well known that whilst the French Government at home allows absolute freedom in religious matters-indeed is thought to be opposed to the Catholic Church-yet abroad, and in the Pacific especially, occupation by France is thought to mean the granting of privileges to the Roman Catholic Church that are not granted to any other religious body.

4. There is also a strong feeling in the colonies that they should protest against any further occupation by foreign Powers of the Pacific Islands.

5. The islanders themselves are strongly opposed to French occupation.

6. The labour question will complicate the issue, for it is apparent to me the getting of labourers in the islands for plantations in Fiji and elsewhere is attended with great and increasing difficulties.

Victoria, now as before, takes the lead in opposing any scheme by which these islands may become a French possession.

When it was reported in Melbourne that French annexation was imminent, Mr. Service prophetically pointed out that, unless prompt and united action was taken by the colonies, the matter would soon be un fait accompli. After communicating his fear to the other colonies, they unanimously agreed by their various ministers that it might prove a fault, to be ever deplored, but never to be

7 June 1883.

remedied, if Australia, through supineness, were to allow the New Hebrides, in the important strategic position which they occupy towards her, to fall without an effort into the hands of a foreign Power. These views were telegraphed to Lord Derby, who appeared impressed with the gravity of the question, and requested that the views of the colonies might be embodied in a joint paper to be submitted to the Cabinet. This was accordingly done, and on the 20th of July, 1883, the Agents-General submitted an able and exhaustive memorandum on the subject, which, however, was not signed by Sir Arthur Blyth, the Agent-General for South Australia, as his government had instructed him that they did not coincide with the views of the other colonies with regard either to annexation or the establishment of a protectorate over the New Hebrides.

On the 24th of February, 1886, Mr. Murray Smith sent the following telegraphic intimation of the French proposals to the Premier of Victoria:

[In secret cypher. Secret and Confidential].

London, 24th February, 1886.

Had an interview with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. All the Agents accompanied by Canadian Commissioner. Received express assurances Her Majesty's Government are determined to strictly adhere to pledge that nothing shall be done to change position of New Hebrides without previously consulting colonial Governments, but he requests us to inform Governments confidentially that the French Ambassador has offered Secretary of State Foreign Affairs France will cease transportation altogether in the Pacific if she is allowed have New Hebrides -whereon he has replied nothing shall be done without consulting the colonies, which was recognised by the Ambassador. Secretary of State for the Colonies then said that these proposals might be more acceptable if Rapa were given to England, and now Granville invites Governments to consider the proposals of French Ambassador, and to communicate result as soon as convenient, consistent with the importance of subject. Rights British subjects, missionaries, guaranteed. Communicate to other Governments.

R. MURRAY SMITH.

Various telegrams have passed between Victoria and London in reply. When, however, it became evident that the question was to be compromised, Mr. Gillies, the Victorian Premier, telegraphed his ultimatum to Mr. Murray Smith, who hesitated at first to lay it literally before Lord Granville.

To the Agent-General, London. Melbourne, March 24, 1886. To-day's Age states English politicians favour cession New Hebrides France, condition no transportation, and that Agents-General have no hope successfully opposing this proposal, and are privately convinced France will win. Can this impression prevail? Colonies cannot protest more than they have done. Surely their interests and wishes must be more to England than French aggrandisement. The feeling in colonies is that if Germany or France had Australia peopled by their own, neither would tolerate foreign Power seizing any of islands, New Hebrides least of all, under the circumstances. What would be the use speaking of Imperial federation in face of an act which would proclaim stronger than any language contemptuous indifference for our wishes and future prospects?

Should English Ministers give away, or allow to be taken, New Hebrides today, Australasia will assuredly take them back when able.

D. GILLIES.

Queensland agrees with Victoria, and the views of this colony are contained in the following telegram, which was settled in conference between Mr. Griffith, Premier of Queensland, and Mr. Gillies on the 13th of March last, and afterwards submitted to the other federated colonies:

'Colonies in Federal Council, except Fiji, which cannot be communicated with, have insuperable objections any alterations in status New Hebrides in direction sovereignty of France. They adhere to the resolution Sydney convention and address of Federal Council 5th February. In their opinion very strong reason to believe that if France cannot get an increase of territory she will have very soon to wholly relinquish to deport prisoners Pacific. Should she not, legislative powers Australian colonies must be exercised to protect their own interests by exclusion. Under the circumstances no advantage will be derived from accepting proposals, but only very considerable injury.'8

D. GILLIES.

South Australia may be opposed to annexing or protecting the New Hebrides, but Mr. Downer, the Premier, has plainly indicated that the desire of his government is to act in co-operation with Victoria in the present matter, and upon Mr. Gillies communicating the proposed telegram to the Agent-General, the South Australian Prime Minister replied:

I

Adelaide, March 16.

agree to whole of telegram.

J. W. DOWNER.

New South Wales apparently approves of the compromise and refuses to interfere. The temptation to get rid of the awkward récidiviste question has proved too much for the colony, and Sir Patrick Jennings, the Premier, is already making inquiries through his Agent-General as to within what period the occupation of colonies in the Pacific as penal settlements of France will cease.' Sir Henry Parkes and his friends, however, take an opposite view, and so the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales may be said to be divided upon this important point.

When the whole matter of annexation of the neighbouring islands. in the Western Pacific was discussed at the Intercolonial Convention, held at Sydney in 1883, by representatives from the governments of all the British Colonies of Australasia, it was unanimously resolved:—

That, although the understanding of 1878 between Great Britain and France recognising the independence of the New Hebrides appears to preclude the Convention from making any recommendation inconsistent with that understanding, the Convention urges upon Her Majesty's Government that it is extremely desirable that such understanding should give place to some more definite engagement which shall secure those islands from falling under any foreign dominion. At the same time the Convention trusts Her Majesty's Government will avail itself of any opportunity that may arise for negotiating with the Government of France with the object of obtaining the control of these islands and the interests of Australasia.

See, in connection with this, evidence of Barrière. Governor of New Caledonia p. 17, Parliamentary paper C 4584.

And the delegates then and there engaged to recommend measures for defraying the cost incurred in giving effect to the resolution, having regard of course to the importance of Imperial and Australasian interests.

It will, therefore, be seen that if the present Government of New South Wales is ready to coincide with Great Britain in giving up the New Hebrides to France, the late Sir Alexander Stuart, Mr. George Dibbs, and Mr. Bede Dally, who represented that colony at the Convention of 1883, though opposed to annexation, entertained strong views against the islands falling into the hands of a foreign Power.

Tasmania and Western Australia agree more or less with Victoria. The missionaries too are not favourable to French annexation, and their opinion should carry weight, seeing the present civilised condition of the New Hebrides is chiefly due to their heroic conduct and self-denying efforts.

Dr. Steel of Sydney says:

the population of natives in the New Hebrides is rapidly declining, and these islands will certainly be annexed by some Power, as they are well fitted to grow all kinds of tropical spices and other fruits. They were discovered for the most part by British navigators, traded with by British vessels, regularly visited by Her Majesty's ships of war, and justice frequently administered by Her Majesty's naval officers, and finally evangelised by the labours and munificence of British subjects.

Mr. Paton, senior missionary of the New Hebrides Mission, thus expresses himself:

The sympathy of the New Hebrides natives are all with Great Britain, hence they long for British protection; while they fear and hate the French, who appear eager to annex the group, because they have seen the way the French have treated the native races of New Caledonia, the Loyalty Islands, and other South Sea Islands.

All the men, and all the money (over 140,000l.) used in civilising and Christianising the New Hebrides, have been British. Now fourteen missionaries, and theDayspring' mission ship, and about 150 native evangelists and teachers, are employed in the above work on this group, in which over 6,000l. yearly of British and British colonial money is expended, and certainly it would be unwise to let any other Power now to take possession and reap the fruits of all this British outlay. All the imports of the New Hebrides are from Sydney and Melbourne and British colonies, and all its exports are also to British colonies.

The thirteen islands of this group, on which life and property are now comparatively safe, the 8,000 professed Christians on the group, and all the churches formed among them, are, by God's blessing, the fruits of the labours of British missionaries, who, at great toil, expense, and loss of life, have translated, got printed, and taught the natives to read the Bible, in part, or in whole, in nine different languages of this group, while 70,000 at least are longing and ready for the Gospel. On this group twenty-one members of the mission family died, or were murdered by the savages in beginning God's work among them, not including good Bishop Paterson, of the Melanesian mission, and we fear all this good work would be lost if the New Hebrides fell into other than British hands.

Mr. Macdonald gives the following account of the Presbyterian Mission in the New Hebrides :

It has now fourteen European missionaries, together with about 150 native Christian teachers, who may be regarded as the hope of their race both as to Chris

tianity and civilisation. The mission is carried on at an annual expense of about 6,000l. of British home and colonial money. The natives to a man are as much in favour of British as they are opposed to French annexation. There is not commercially a richer or more fertile group than the New Hebrides in the Pacific.

Several memorials and petitions have been addressed from time to time to the Queen, praying for a protectorate or annexation of the New Hebrides.

In 1862 the chiefs of Tanna sent a petition to Sir John Young, governor of New South Wales, for a protectorate.

In 1868 one was presented by the New Hebrides Mission through Lord Belmore, and the same year another was presented by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland to Lord Stanley.

In 1872 one was sent to Lord Kimberley by the same religious body.

In 1874 Victoria petitioned, and also the natives of Vaté, through Mr. Carey, of H.M.S. 'Conflict.'

In 1877 the Presbyterian Church of Victoria and New South Wales, the Free Church of Scotland, and the New Hebrides Mission, all petitioned Great Britain for annexation.

And, in 1882, all the Presbyterian Church of Australasia, assembled in Conference at Sydney, entreated for the annexation of the group.

In face of this information, I venture to think the postponement of the settlement of this much-vexed question in order to convert the colonies to the Imperial view is fraught with much danger both to their interests and our own, and if some more immediate action is not now taken, we shall find ourselves checkmated by France.

While the 1878 understanding nominally remains in force, annexation by either France or England of the New Hebrides is impossible without disturbing the entente cordiale at present existing between the two nations.

Some alteration in the present condition of these affairs must, in the interests of Great Britain and Australasia, take place.

Having regard to the important work done in these islands by our own missionaries, and the expressed opinion of our Australian Colonies, any compromise that would place the New Hebrides under the control of France cannot be considered. The interests of British subjects in Australasia require that there should exist in the New Hebrides some form of government which can insure protection of life and property, and otherwise facilitate commercial intercourse, which it is but too evident that the Western Pacific Order in Council of 1877 fails to effect.

What I suggest is, that a Government, representing native, colonial, French, and British interests, should be formed, and diplomatically recognised by the interested Powers as authoritative.

C. KINLOCH COOKF.

VOL. XX.-No. 113.

K