Macarthur Onslow Again

Section of Norfolk Islanders Defend the Deportee

THE Norfolk Island Association has sent us a lengthy statement of its atti tude towards the Macarthur Onslow affair. The Association claims to repre sent “the large majority of the residents there, Norfolk Island born and settlers, and including on its committee all the elected members of the Island’s Executive Council.”

Captain Macarthur Onslow was a tem porary resident of the island. It was al leged (according to a Parliamentary re port) that he was instrumental in causing disaffection on the island, and made a nuisance of himself in various ways, and finally the Administrator (Captain Pin ney) exercised certain powers that he has, and deported the gentleman. Captain Onslow thereupon visited sundry news paper offices in Sydney and succeeded in stirring up a great amount of feeling against Captain Pinney.

Finally, when the agitation became too outrageous, the Prime Minister made in Parliament the statement concerning Captain Macarthur Onslow which we published in August. There has been nothing more about N.I. in the Australian newspapers: but the people of N.I. appar ently are determined that the agitation shall not die. The following is a sum mary of the claims made by the N.I.

Association: There is not, and has not been, any disaffection on the island. On the other hand, there is most serious discontent with the present system of Administra tion. In this connection, a petition signed by half the residents of the island and fully representative of all interests, has been submitted to the Governor-General, praying for an inquiry into the present state of Norfolk Island affairs.

The activities of the Returned Soldiers on the island have been completely mis represented.

The statement that Captain Macarthur Onslow arrived here a recognised dipso maniac, that he was under medical and police surveillance constantly, and that he was encouraging disaffection here, is strangely at variance with what is locally known of Captain Macarthur Onslow and his activities during his residence here.

As far as is known to residents of the island, he may have suffered from an in temperance in the use of liquor. He was certainly not a dipsomaniac.

It has been emphasised in Parliament that he brewed “moonshine” (that is, hop beer). The Association feels that this point is pressed inadvisedly by the Ad ministration. In a full public meeting here it has been stated on completely competent authority that brewing “moon shine” was a habit of a gentleman who was recently a prominent official.

All visitors to the island deposit the return half of their ticket with the ship ping company, in accordance with regu lations for their entry here.

There is no evidence that Captain Mac arthur Onslow ever committed a disturb ance in the Church of England. On Christmas night, 1933, with the full con sent of the vicar, he sang a carol in church, and took advantage of the oppor

timaty to express his thanks to the con gregation for the hospitality accorded him. This may have been unconvention al, but the statement that it constitutes a “disturbance” has surprised nobody more than the congregation. Captain Macarthur Onslow took communion at the church as quietly and reverently as anyone else there.

The “assault case” referred to by Mr.

Scullin was a trifling breach of the peace, the verdict on which was received by this community with mixed feelings.

That he “was a nuisance everywhere he went” is quite at variance with facts.

He and his family were on close social terms with many of the most highly re spected residents -here, and the Associa tion wishes to emphasise that of the 404 residents who voiced a most energetic protest to the Government against the treatment meted out to him, many had until that occasion neither seen him nor known him, and certainly were not likely to be influenced by his social position or his family comnections. The statement made on that occasion by him has since been shown to be a restrained and fully accurate statement of true facts, and statements since made by him, in the Australian jsress and elsewhere, have the cordial approval of the large majority of residents here.

Nothing that has transpired in Parlia mentary discussion alters the opinion of residents here that Captain Macarthur Onslow has been made the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.

The present situation is not an isolated instance of discontent. It is the outcome of a long period of increasing dissatisfac tion with the present system of Administration, during which numerous complaints have gone forward to Can berra. and are apparently still under investigation there.