The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalent FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1883. The New Guinea Annexation.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 958, 1 June 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalent FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1883. The New Guinea Annexation.

When we first heard that the Government of Queensland had upon their own responsibility planted the British flag upon New Guinea and taken possession of the island in the name of Queen Victoria, it could not fail to be a matter of wonder in what light the Imperial authorities would view the action. It was altogether such a new departure in colonial politics that when the English Government first learnt the news, their breath must have fairly been taken away. That a dependency should step in and usurp the functions of the Mother Country was hitherto inconceivable, and it is not easy to see what the ultimate issue of the proceeding will be. What information is vouchsafed to us by Reuter concerning the matter is certainly contradictory. At one time we are told that New Guinea will be proclaimed a Crown colony, and at another —and this is the latest intelligence we have received—Earl Derby has determined not to do this, but to establish trading stations in certain parts of the island. Neither of these courses is likely to meet with the approval of the Australian colonies. The advisability of annexing New Guinea has been discussed for a long time, not only because it would be a valuable possession in itself, but because were it allowed to fall into the hands of any foreign power, it would be a source of danger to the neighboring colonies. But assuredly Queensland, when she acted as she did, did not contemplate the possibility of New Guinea being declared a Crown colony, to be ruled over, as Fiji is, by an autocratic Governor whose will is law. Such a form of government is not only objectionable in itself, but experience has shown that it has a demoralising effect, and interferes with the development of a country’s resources. We are left entirely in the dark as to who is to have control over the trading stations that are to be established, but we suppose that that duty will fall to the lot of Queensland. The result of the experiment will be watched with interest, although it is evident that the enterprising colony which took possession of the island expected that the government of the whole of New Guinea would be given into her hands. From a cablegram published in this issue, it appears that a Blue Book on this subject has been printed, in which it is stated that Lord Derby was averse to the annexation. This makes the action of the Queensland Government all the more extraordinary, as it is very improbable that the step was taken before an effort was made to discover how such an unprecedented act on the part of a colony would be, considered by the Imperial authorities. What course the Secretary of State for the Colonies will advise is not officially announced, but if he changes his opinions on the question, it will certainly be due to the strong expression of feeling regarding the advisability of sanctioning the annexation given by the other Australasian colonies. Had the late Lord Beaconsfield been liNng and in power, such a plucky stroke of policy as that carried out by Queensland would have commended itself to his mind. The want of precedent would have been no objection in his eyes, as it assuredly is to the Liberal party. However, we must be content to wait for more definite information upon a subject that will be keenly discussed in the English Parliament, but it is certain that if New Guinea is abandoned some other power will step in and take possession of what must eventually be a very valuable colony.