STANLEY, THE AFRICAN EXPLORER.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5010, 14 April 1877, Page 2 (Supplement)

STANLEY, THE AFRICAN EXPLORER.

Mr. Henry Stanley’s position (observes the Home News of 16th February) has always been peculiar. He is the servant of an English and an American newspaper, and yet it has been the fasbi- u with ourselves to look on him as a pure Englishman. Stanley, of course, is a subject of the United States Government. It is true that he has used the British flag in Africa; but then so did Sergeant Bates, a Yankee and a pedestrian (now said to be dying of poverty), when he tramped through England. There is a distinction. The “exploit” of Bates was mere child’s play, and attracted none but roughs, bicyclists, and nursemaids ; whereas Stanley’s performances have been of a more serious character. When he returns to Europe or America, Stanley will have to endeavor, and may possibly be able to justify himself. The cleverness and brilliancy of his identical letters to, the Daily Teleyraph and the New York Herald were freely admitted, as also his pluck and his dog-like fidelity (in the Homeric sense) to his employers. He was well treated in this country. He received the Royal Geographical Society’s gold medal as an eminent foreigner who had done sound scientific work ; and, if he was a little chaffed at a Brighton dinner about his Welsh origin, and if he lost his temper, the fault was chiefly Mr. Stanley’s own for not appreciating a jocose allusion to his early training. It is reported by telegraph that strong action is being taken by the British African Consuls against Stanley, and that on account of his alleged cruelties committed in the course of his semi-military progress, he will be arrested at whatever seaport he may first return to. This premonition it is almost impossible to believe, and that for three reasons all based on the same generic principle. When Mr. Hyndman wanted the London Geographical Society to pass a vote of censure on Stanley, they refused, their main ground of objection being that the accused was not a British subject. Again, what Lord Derby most justly blamed the American explorer for was his illicit hoisting—he being an alien—of those British colors which could give him no authority, and insure him no protection. Thirdly, we can argue (X fortiori that the English Consuls on the African seaboard would think twice, or, as Mr. Gladstone would say, three times, before they would dream of arresting Stanley. If he has committed any heinous outrages, it must be the American and not the British authorities to whom the Africans must look. And even if he were morally guilty, his seizure by English officials might lead to a grave international question, for Stanley is surely worth more than those of the genus Brett and Winslow.