Genesis Of The Condominium

History of on Extraordinary Experiment in Colonial Administration

By A. Middenway

( COME day , when the war is over , there will be far-reaching changes in the Governments of the Pacific Territories.

One Administration that is certain to be changed is that of the New Hebrides Con dominium. Here is the history of that extraordinary political experiment. It was compiled, as the result of much research, by Captain A. Middenway, who died in 1940, after long years of service in the British Solomons. The late Captain Middenway’s article will be of much value when the Condominium is under review. — Editor.) IN the settlement of the New Guinea problem in 1883, international ap peasement was the main factor; in the establishment of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, humanitarian in fluences predominated ; while in the creation of the Condominium in the New Hebrides, the ardour of the Australian colonies was stimulated by their interest in missionary enterprise.

The New Hebrides Group was dis covered by Quiros in 1606; Bougainville visited it later, and in 1774, Captain Cook mapped and named it and at the same time took possession of New Caledonia by right of discovery. The latter is but one of the actions of her navigators that Great Britain did not confirm, and in this instance, one that would ultimately have avoided a Pacific international

problem. ... .

The first protestant missionaries settled in the New Hebrides in 1839, under the auspices of the London Missionary Society. But the field was later assigned to the Presbyterian mission bodies in Canada, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand, thus giving the colonies a definite interest.

IN 1841, when the See of New Zealand was established, the inaccurate boun daries, transcribed from the letters patent of the colony itself, included the New Hebrides in a vast area of about 4,700 square miles of ocean; but in 1878, when Sir George Grey, then Premier of New Zealand, protested that the islands were within the boundaries of that colony, the Imperial Government informed him that this was no longer the case.

In 1848, Bishop Selwyn established the Melanesian Mission on the Isle of Pines (south of New Caledonia) and hoped from there to complete the spiritual con

quest of both New Caledonia and the New Hebrides. But by this time the Presby terian Mission had been extended to all the islands in the New Hebrides Group, with the exception of three of the smaller islands which had been allotted to the Melanesian Mission.

In 1851, when Bishop Selwyn re-visited the Isle of Pines, he found that his teachers had gone to other islands and that the Vicariate Apostolic, established by the French Roman Catholics in New Caledonia, embraced the Isle of Pines, the Loyalty Islands and Belep.

THE New Hebrides lie to the northward of New Caledonia and the most dis tant is about 200 miles from Noumea.

French influence spread through the group by reason of its proximity, and it is evident that Great Britain considered it both logical and probable that the Group would eventually be absorbed in New Caledonia. There would appear to be little doubt that the matter had been the subject of conversations between France and the Foreign Office; and this is supported by the fact that the New Hebrides were omitted from the islands which are specifically mentioned as within the jurisdiction of the High Com missioner in the Western Pacific Order in-Council of 1877.

However, the matter was put beyond doubt in 1878, when the Australasian colonies demanded annexation. The French Government protested, and drew attention to articles which had appeared in Australian newspapers, bringing from the Colonial Office an assurance that “Her Majesty’s Government have no in tention of proposing any measure to Parliament with a view of changing the condition of independence which the New Hebrides now enjoy”. This declaration be came known as the “1878 Understanding’.

c Efate and other localities, both from the over! a company was being formed in New Caledonia to colonise the New Hebrides and so “force France to take possession of the Group as Britain had to do in Fiji”.

Feeling in Australia ran high, and five 0 f the colonies sent petitions to the Colo nial Office, demanding action.

Victoria took the lead, as in that colony the Presbyterian Mission had established its headquarters. In their memorandum, dated July 21, they wrote: “At some time of which we are not aware, a rather vague understanding appears to have been come to with the Government of France that the New Hebrides should be relinquished as a possession of the Crown and their independence recognised”.

This brought from Lord Derby a reply to the effect that the independence of the New Hebrides had been recognised and acce pted by both Governments and, at the same time, the French Government re ceived a further assurance that the exist ing agreement was considered binding and no interference was meditated. rpOWARDS the end of 1883, the agitation X for British action was strengthened by the proposal of the French Government to make fuller use of the penal settlement in New Caledonia, and the belief that such action was necessary to prevent the French from using the New Hebrides as she was using New Caledonia.

The transport of convicts to New Cale donia gan in 1864 . i„ 1865, 205 had r S ed 2 ''’SfcM

Hasrs. xjrssn. *s

»®® “ bounds of the " „ The Agent-General for New Zealand protested: “It is vain for anyone to imagine that habitual criminals, steeped in vice and debauchery, and stained with

every crime, to whom a distinct promise is given of absolute freedom on their arrival m the French colony, will really be interned within its limits”.

ALTHOUGH all the colonies were sup porting a vigorous annexation policy before the end of 1883, Mr. Stuart, the Premier of New South Wales, felt personally that after the repeated ex change of assurances between England and France, the rights of France in the Group would have to be recognised, and he suggested, possibly for the first time that “a joint protectorate by England and France over the New Hebrides and other groups would be the best and most practical solution of the question”.

When the conference of Premiers met

Sydney at the end of 1883, the New r f anked next to New Guinea as a matter for urgent attention.

J> G -, Paton ’ in a letter to the ?w 0r £ n( s fading for annexation, said S. Br itish did not annex the New Hebrides, undoubtedly some other nation would, and that neither the French nor any other nation had spent a farthing on them for their good. He pleaded for annexation because the Missions engaged m civilising the islands, by giving them the gospel, were British societies, and all the two millions of money spent in the missionary efforts in the South Seas was British money.

The Premier of Victoria enthusiastically supported the Missions’ plea for annexa tion and claimed that “the people of England are at our back”.

The Premier of New South Wales, how ever, did not think the people of England were interested; and, added: “If it turned out, as I believe it would, that there was some sort of agreement or understanding between Fmnce and England that neither should take possession of the Group our action in urging annexation was in direct violation of such agreement and might actually defeat the object we had at heart by causing the French to use it as a justification for carrying out the annexation themselves”.

The New South Wales Premier suc ceeded in convincing the conference that the "understanding of 1878” was an ob stacle to annexation. Eventually a reso

iution wa,s passed that the understanding with France should give way to “some more definite engagement which shall secure these islands from falling under foreign dominion”, and that the British Government should seize any opportunity oi negotiating “with the object of obtain ing control of the islands in the interests of Australia”.

The convention also declared itself em phatically against the intention of France to transport large numbers of relapsed criminals to the Pacific; and, in spite of an earher disallowance of a Queensland Bill, the colonies decided to pass uniform laws to prevent the landing on their shores of escapees from New Caledonia.

IN acknowledging the resolutions of the convention, Lord Derby re-affirmed Great Britain’s attitude towards the New Hebrides, but took up the matter of the penal settlement at New Caledonia with the Foreign Office.

The French Government, however saw no cause for the alarm that the colonies had displayed with regard to New Cale donia, since the relapsed criminals would not be actual convicts, would not be numerous and would be prohibited from leaving the island. Mr. Ferry, speaking for France, said he desired to show every consideration but “he could not admit that any foreign country had the right to prevent France from sending convicts to one of her own colonies”.

The French assurances were not accep table to the colonies for, at the time, their police authorities had records of 247 es capees arnd expirees who had effected their landing in New South Wales and Queensland between 1874 and 1883.

WITH the seizure of the northern por tion of New Guinea by Germany, there was considerable international unrest, and it was not altogether un reasonably feared in Australia that colo nial interests in the New Hebrides would be bartered away without reference, for the sake of placating foreign nations.

Petitions continued to reach the Colo nial Office from varied colonial sources, until anxiety was momentarily set at rest by Lord Derby’s assurance to the Presbyterian Church of Otago (NZ), that the British Government would never en tertain any proposal for French an nexation “without consulting the Aus tralasian colonies and without securing conditions satisfactory to those colonies; and further, that no Government of this country would ever think of giving over the New Hebrides to France without taking care that they would never become a penal settlement”.

Within the next few months (in 1885) Germany agreed to renounce, for herself, in favour of France, any claim she may have had in the New Hebrides and Tahiti, and undertook not to interpose any ob stacles to French sovereignty in New Hebrides, should such a step be proposed.

Early in 1886, the Federal Council of Australia again approached the Imperial Government, pointing out that as all missionary activity was the work of the colonies, there was naturally a keen pub lic feeling attaching to the future of the New Hebrides.

IN June, 1886, without any warning or notice, France established one or two military posts in the Group. She claimed that the step was forced on her by the occurrence of outrages, and that she would be glad to withdraw as soon as satisfactory arrangements were made for peace and security.

This created a further feeling of anxiety, and the Foreign Office opened negotiations with France which led to a suggestion from that country that the Suez Canal be discussed concurrently with the New Hebrides. This, however, was rejected.

In the meantime, political uncertainty in France hindered further discussion.

When this was overcome, France intro duced the abrogation of the Declaration of 1847, which prevented her sovereignty over Raiatea. Great Britain agreed, in consideration of a plan being agreed upon "for the future protection of life and property in the New Hebrides by means of a joint commission”.

THE agreement, eventually made, pro vided for a joint Naval Commission of French and British Officers to be charged with the duty of maintaining order and protecting life and property.

It was laid down that no Naval Officer, whether British or French, was to take independent or isolated action, and that in the event of trouble arising, the Joint Commission should assemble and take necessary action.

Considering the definite rivalries of the two nationalities at the time, the Com mission worked satisfactorily for a few years, but eventually outlived its useful ness. From time to time, a joint protec torate was discussed, but this was strongly opposed by the Deakin Ministry, and it was not until the Colonial Office had made it clear that understandings with France prevented Britain obtaining full control that, very reluctantly, Mr. Deakin agreed to the principle of joint control.

A declaration was signed at London on April 8, 1904, which aimed at ending the difficulties arising from an absence of jurisdiction over the natives, and settling disputes regarding landed property; but, for more than a year, nothing con structive was done.

Both the Commonwealth and New Zealand became impatient. Mr. Deakin pressed for some action, but urged that any proposed settlement should be sub mitted to Australia and New Zealand before being concluded.

IT was not until February, 1906, that delegates from France and Great Britain met, and a convention was signed in March for submission to the respective governments. It provided, first, that the Group of the New Hebrides, including the Banks and Torres Islands, should form a region of joint influence, and among other provisions it was stipu lated that citizens of the two Signatory Powers should enjoy equal rights of residence, etc., each of the two powers retaining jurisdiction over its subjects; that each Country should appoint a High Commissioner and a Resident Commis sioner, and each Resident Commissioner should have control of a body of police of the same strength, sufficient to guarantee the protection of life and prop erty; that each of the Commissioners and the joint Court should be established at Vila and should administer the following services in common: police, posts and telegraphs, public works, ports and har bours, lighthouses, public health and finance. No fortifications should be erected or penal settlements established.

It was also provided that no native should be allowed to acquire the status of a subject of either power or to come under its protection. Citizens of other powers resident in the Group were per mitted, within six months, to choose which law they would come under, and provision was made for the settlement of land disputes and for the control of the labour traffic. The sale of arms and alcoholic liquors to natives was totally prohibited. The convention contained 68 articles.

Before confirming the instrument, Lord t Elgin had to submit it to Australia and ‘New Zealand.

Mr. Deakin protested that not only had the Dominions not been invited to send a representative to the conference, but they did not know officially that it was being held and they were now asked for

their opinion in a despatch which ended with the words: “The draft convention must be confirmed or rejected practically as it stands”. He contended that a system which put French and British settlers under different jurisdiction would be unsatisfactory, and suggested amendments.

On the other hand, New Zealand dis trusted joint protectorates but was in formed by the Imperial Government that they could not entertain the idea of making concessions elsewhere to obtain the entire withdrawal of France, nor could they, owing to the distribution of population, effect an equitable partition.

By the time the despatches from the Dominions had reached England, further complications had arisen; and, although Lord Elgin was prepared to put forward some of the colonial suggestions, he felt it was wiser to ratify the draft as it stood, lest France should put forward counter-proposals.

Australia and New Zealand, having no alternative, withdrew their objections.

The convention was ratified on October 20.

In handing over the administration of British interests to the High Commis sioner, Lord Elgin described the arrange ment as a species of “Condominium” for which there was no diplomatic precedent, since the country had no institutions of its own and no political organisation.

Miss Rewa Chapman, second daughter of Mr. and Mrs. W. Chapman, of Nausori, Fiji, recently married Mr. George Dight, formerly of Mosman, NSW, at Nausori.

Mrs. M. A. Carew (Assistant Mistress at Suva Girls’ Grammar School), and Miss N. J. Burnley (Assistant Mistress at Levuka Public School) resigned from the Fiji Civil Service last month.

Mr. Newton Davidson, who had been living in retirement on Nananu-i-Cake Island, off the Ra coast, Fiji, for the past 15 years, died last month at the age of 76. An Englishman, he went to Fiji many years ago in the employ of Vuna plan tation, Taveuni Island. Later, he was an attendant at the CSR Co.'s hospital at Labasa. He is survived by Mrs. Davidson.

Dr. and Mrs. W. Armstrong, Presby terian missionaries of Tanna Island, New Hebrides, have completed their furlough in Australia. They returned to the Con dominium early this month,

Canon John Stafford Needham, chair- .man for the past 20 years of the Austrahan Board of Missions (which is responsible for the Anglican mission work m Papua and on the mainland of New ? g ": died in Sydney on February 26 -