THE “ LYTTELTON TIMES ” ON THE POLYNESIAN SCHEME.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 180, 6 January 1875, Page 3

THE “ LYTTELTON TIMES ” ON THE POLYNESIAN SCHEME.

The Lyttelton Times, apparently hard up for topics of interest at the present moment, has fallen foul of the Polynesian scheme of Mr Vogel, as embodied in the papers laid before the General Assembly last session. It condemns the matter, with its usual burlesque authbritativen ess, scarcely deigning, indeed, to treat it as serious. “Amusing” and “mad” are the terms in which the Lyttelton flows mentions the project. “It ■will scarcely be credited,” says our contemporary, with compassionate contempt, “that the late Governor gave his warm support to such a scheme. ” Probably Sir James Fergusson can give some reason for so doing, which Lord Carnarvon may think it worth while to consider with attention, even were he aware that the whole affair had been pooh-poohed by so tremendous an authority as the J/y Helton Times. Leaving MrVogelout of the question, the late Governor is admitted to be a long-headed man, and is scarcely likely to have regarded the project with such warm approval as we have reason to know he does, had it been so crazy as the articles alluded to represent it. The synopsis of the affair given, besides, is by no means correct. The Lyttelton Times might have been content to argue against the feasibility of the scheme, without garbling the correspondence. We will proceed to correct a few of these intentional errors.

Mr Vogel, we are told, sought to work through the jealousy of her Majesty’s Minister by the information that the United States had concluded a treaty with the chief of Samoa, reported detrimental to the interests of the Australasian colonies ; and that the only ans wee made was to forward copies of correspondence between the Foreign Office and Washington, showing that no such treaty had been sanctioned in the latter place. Evidently our contemporary considers this a snub. But in what other form should an answer have been sent? Mr Vogel’s memorandum was forwarded by Sir G. Bowen, under the date 26th June, 1872. It was transmitted from the Colonial Office, September 11th, to Lord Granville, for explanation. On the 20th, Mr Hammond forwarded to Lord Kimberly a dispatch from Sir E. Thornton, concerning the alleged treaty, by which it appeared that the United States were to have an exclusive right to the harbor of Pango Pango as a naval station and coaling depot; this, however, would not interfere with any other vessel which might frequent the port, or with commercial regulations. Lord Kimberley considered this statement to require some explanation, and a further dispatch was sent from the Foreign Office to her Majesty’s Minister at Washington. Sir Edward Thornton, under date of November 18th, 1872, relates a conversation held with the Secretary of State, Mr Fish, by which it appeared that the document in question could not be seen by him till the meeting of Congress, but that his impression from memory was that there was nothing in it that would interfere with any vessels frequenting the port, or with commercial transactions. A copy of this despatch was forwarded to the Colonial Office on the 9th December, and copies of the whole correspondence were sent to Sir G. Bowen by Lord Kimberley on the 18oh December. The conduct of the Colonial Office i«. however, stigmatised by the Lyttelton Times as “red tape inanxureuce. -w—----do not see how it could have been very much quicker over the matter, considering that the communication of the Premier of New Zealand was forwarded by it within three weeks of its arrival to the Foreign Office, and that within ten days of the conclusion of the consequent correspondence, copies of the whole were sent out,

The second article starts with Mr Vogel’s memorandum of October 17th, 1873, in which he urges the desirability of Great Britain’s adopting some settled line of policy with regard to the various groups of Polynesia. Any sane man can see that where Mr Vogel speaks of “ colonising or civilizing Polynesia” he does not wish to propose that England should simultaneously seize all the archipiligoes of Oceanica. It is pretty certain, we suppose, that if they are destined to be colonised at all, it will be mainly by the Anglo-Saxon race. “In the absence of all machinery,” writes Mr Vogel, “ for governing, or controlling, or punishing for crime the white race, lawless communities will grow up in these islands. Then, when the necessity for control becomes imperative, it will be found, as in the case of Fiji, that the delay has made it difficult to do that which, at an earlier stage, might with ease have been effected. ”

The truth of these remarks is not to be gainsaid; nor, perhaps, are the reasons urged why New Zealand should be allowed to aid in extending British sway, unworty of consideration. Mr Vogel does not offer any definite opinion as to whether this should be done by means of a legal machinery applicable only to the white inhabitants; by resident “governors, or magistrates, who would continue to recognise the rights of the dark race to self-government; or by uniting the islands into provinces, controlled under similar conditions.” The state of Fiji for so many years should be a warning for the future; had magisterial {powers been granted to the Consul, as often asked, there would have arisen no mock kingdom, and its attendant anarchy. Other similar Alsatias will arise in the Pacific beyond doubt, in course of time, should some strong power not intervene ; and what power should do so more suitably than Great Britain? Not only Samoa, but Fiji, have had a narrow escape of becoming a Prussian possession. This memorandum of Mr Vogel’s the writer in the Lyttelton Times, serenly proud of the matchless classicality of his own style, declares “quite a model composition pf its class.” That neophyte in composition, the author, should be flattered at the opinion of such an eminent critic. Lord Kimberly might be surprised to learn that his breath had been taken away by Mr Vogel’s proposals. This inference is queerly drawn from the paraoraph in Lord Kimberley’s reply to the Governor that “ Her Majesty’s Ministers had considered your Dispatch and the Memorandum with the attention due to yourself and your Ministers, and had prepared an answer to it, but in present circumstances they think it better to postpone sending it.” It would be interesting to know what there is in this to make it appear that Lord Kimberley’s breath had been taken away. But the real reason of the answer not having been sent is to be gathered from the date of the despatch. It is February 10th, 1874. It is not customary for an expiring Cabinet to send decisions on important matters, which will only be received when their own authority has become a thing of the past. This | despatch, by the way, seems to the Lyttelton

Times to partake of red tape indifference, as it says, Lord Kimberley “ merely states in reply,” &c. Why, what more could he have said beyond that, an answer had been prepared, but was not sent, owing, to the state of things at the time. Judging from his apparent ideas of what official correspondence should be, we conceive that the writer in our contemporary would make a very extraordinary minister indeed.

The memorandum of the proposed scheme, by Mr Vogel, is styled “the next scene in the melodrama.” A melodrama is usually supposed to portray events of a somewhat exciting mature. How a few letters and memoranda, containing no startling narrative, but only proposals for an enterprise, which is, as yet, altogether a thing of the future, can be styled “a melodrama,” is rather incomprehensible. It would be equally appropriate, and just as euphonious, to call them a catechism, or a doxology. “The company,” writes Mr Vogel, “is to purchase, if procurable, the leading factories and estates already existent in the chief islands, and to establish others of its own ; to acquire land, and assist suitable persons with capital and means, on condition that the produce be sold to the company at agreed prices ; to aid the missionaries to civilise, and to endeavour to encourage native industry by agreements with the chiefs.” This the Lyttelton Times, with charming wit, summarises in these words :—“ Missionary work is to be combined with landsharking, and business is to be carried on on strictly Christian principles.” What admirable good taste there is in translating “to acquire land” as “ land-sharking.” What a keen insight into the evil designs of that wicked Mr Vogel! And how excruciatingly witty it is to speak of the business as to be carried on upon strictly Christian principles ! Probably Mr Vogel could give a better reason for speaking of aiding the missionaries to civilize, and showing that it was not merely what the Lyttelton Times evidently considers it, thrown in as a sop to “good” people. The great Hamburg firm of Godeffroy, whose central ieat of 'operalions Js abApia, in the Navigators’ group, almost monopolize the trade throughout an enormous portion of Polynesia and Micronesia. Throughout that vast region extending from the Samoas to the Carolines, their agents are to be found and their vessels are to be met with. But one of the principles on which they uniformly act, and which they inculcate on their employes, is to obstruct and oppose the missionary influence. It would be out of place to dwell here on their reasons. To attribute to them any antipathy to the doctrines of Christianity would be ridiculous; but all traders in the Pacific know well that it is only in rare instances that the missionaries will be content with simply propagating the traths of religion, and that they mill press on the natives the necessity, and the spiritual advantage, of contributing to the funds of the mission. One reverend gentleman lately in sending in his usual report of the state of the island under his charge, and where the Roman Catholics and Protestants are constantly waging war on each other, alluding to the limited amount of oil, &c., which he had to forward, piously wrote that he “ regretted to say that they have not learnt yet to carry their cross duly in this respect.” Truly the cry of the missionaries in many islands of the South Pacific, is enternally “ Give I give ! ” Mr Vogel, when he wrote his memorandum, had, Messrs Godeffroy, and^mea^X P r^ c that his Company, at any rate, should not set their face against mission proceedings, in the like manner. It is scarcely worth while devoting any more space to the shallow vulgarity of the writer in the Lyttelton Times. Mr Phillips, we may inform him, is a barrister of good standing in Auckland. The remark that he was * * probably of the Jewish persuasion,” is evidently intended for a sneer, of the same category as the previous remark about the “strictly Christian principles.” Really for wit and good taste combined with erudition, we should have to go far to meet with a rival to our contemporary. Mr Phillips, we observe, having included in his plan the chartering of laborers, the Lyttelton Times intelligently explains that this means “ kidnapping.” Of course it does. Granting that getting land must be landshaking, any obtaining of Polynesian laborers must be kidnapping. What could be clearer? Probably the Queensland authorities, who allow vesscla-to-go ±o_the_NfiwJß and the Solomons to procure labor, ~only with a' Government agent on board each vessel, would be described on the same principle as ‘ ‘ running slavers. ” Mr Phillips, it is added, evidently expects to be paid handsomely for his share in the scheme. Shocking as the admission must appear to the pure mind of the writer, we cannot deny the fact. “ The world is very evil,” our contemporary may remark, in anguish, with the poet ; and people will imagine, if they have started a lucrative enterprise, that they should have some share in the results. A time may come when authors will claim no copyright, and inventors no patent, but'be content with the popular applause—but we fear that that time is not yet. Mr Vogel having agreed with Mr Whitaker, also a barrister of Auckland, that he and others should draw up the heads of an agreement to be put into shape by the Attorney-General, the Lyttelton Times elegantly transcribes this with the improvement “to be licked into shape.” How funny! But a truce to these comments. The writer would do well to remember, that the way to argue successfully against a scheme is not to give garbled extracts, or absurd views of the probable feelings of her Majesty’s Ministers, nor to talk balderdash about gentlemen whom he knows nothing of. Our contemporary is also good enough to say that the English public, when it knows all about the affair, will become filled with alarm and mistrust. This delightfully suggestive of Eatanswill and Little Pedlington—“ The eyes of the world are upon,” &c. It would take a good deal to cause such an amount of excitement, we imagine, in the British public. The Stock Exchange would not be convulsed, nor a panic spread the length and breadth of the land, even if Mr Vogel’s Polynesian scheme involved ten millions, instead of one. We “happen to know,” also, that certain members of the Cabinet have not been altogether so violently antagonistic as the Lyttelton Times would wish its readers to believe,