THE NEW HEBRIDES QUESTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1343, 16 September 1886, Page 3

THE NEW HEBRIDES QUESTION.

“ Bark —says the proverb—is a good dog but Holdfast is a better,” and the saying might be supplemented by the addition that *' barking is of no use at all when the. ; is no bite behind it.” And it is precisely for this reason that the attitude taken up by Victoria in connection with the New Hebrides question has proved so inimical to the best interests of Australasia generally, and has brought matters into so eminently unsatisfactory a position Vapouring such as that which has been indulged in, such as threatening in the event of French annexation to re-take the islands by Australian troops as soon as Australia is strong enough to do so is just—vapouring and nothing more. But it has the effect of irritating the Power against which it is directed and of precipitating the very thing which it is sought to avoid. We concur with those who would like to have seen the New Hebrides annexed by Great Britain years ago, when this might have been done without difficulty, and we also sympathise with those who seeing that this was not done when it should, and could, have been done, desired that the interference of any Foreign Power in the affairs of the islands should have been prevented, but we do not agree with those who think that alarming consequences to Missionary interests are necessarily involved in the occupation of the New Hebrides by France. Certainly such consequences would have been effectually guarded against if the annexation had been permitted under an international treaty which would have laid down certain obligations and secured certain defined privileges to be enjoyed by the subjects of Great Britain, and especially by the missionaries located in the islands. And there was every opportunity offered for this, while in return for permission to annex the islands, France was willing to yield Rapa to England, and —what was still more important—to agree to discontinue the deportation of her criminal scum to these seas altogether. That would have been an immense boon, and it would have been well worth making some sacrifice to gain it. But “ nothing for nothing” is a sound business maxim, and we really cannot see how France can be called upon simply to study the wishes or convenience of the Australian Colonies merely to oblige us, or as a concession to sentiment. Still less is it likely that she will proceed to do so in the face of silly threats of possible reprisals at some distant date. It is therefore, we think, very greatly to be regretted that the sensible course advocated by Sir Robert Stout months before last session was not taken by the common consent of all the colonies, as it would have settled this vexed question on a basis of mutual advantage to all parties concerned. We trust that it is not yet too late to carry out the arrangement proposed—and which evidently met the approval of the Colonial Office under the late administration —and we shall not be surprised if the bint recently given by the present Secretary for the Colonies, that “he hoped to be able shortly to announce that an understanding had been arrived at with France of a nature that would prove acceptable to Australia,” turn out to have meant that negotiations are even now afoot for a settlement of the qilistion somewhat on the lines of that artmgement. Meantime the action takm by France clearly indicates the intention of permanently occupying the islands, and as a French occupation must be followed by a similar occupation by British troops, that is, so long as no exclusive right of possession is accorded to either Power, it is probable that the high-handed proceedings of the French in seeing properties which belong to mission stations (as they are said to have done) will lead to a speedy settlement of the matter. If in the end the outcome be a reversion to the original proposals put forward by France, and approved by the Colonial Office, we think there will be little to regret, while there will be a good deal to rejoice over in the final exclusion from these seas of the taint of French convictism.— Mail.