Apia. Tonga has conducted her affairs through the agency of white officials, under the direct supervision of the native Government, and while she welcomes the foreigner as resident, trader, and even leaseholder, she wisely prevents him acquiring title to lands. This system has given to the group peace and prosperity; what ills contrary methods have brought to unhappy Samoa none but those who have recently visited the islands can even imagine.

Upon those paragraphs of the Convention which refer to Africa I refrain from comment; I am not qualified to express any definite opinion on the subject, nor indeed does it come within the scope of the present article. It remains for me, therefore, to add but a few details concerning other Pacific islands mentioned in the agreement. In Savage, or Niué, Island-generally misspelt Nine-the Germans have never had rights or foothold; consequently, to speak of it as "ceded" territory is euphemistic, to say the least. The same remark, though slightly modified, applies to the Howe islands, which form part of the Solomon group, and are referred to in the declaration affixed to the Convention. Of the seven main islands of the Solomon group, four were annexed by Great Britain in 1893, leaving Bougainville, Choiseul, and Isabel yet within the sphere of German influence, and the two last-mentioned are now transferred to us. They cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered a valuable asset; their climate is bad, the inhabitants have the worst of reputations, and there can be no early prospect of the opening up of trade. This much, however, can always be said of the Solomons, that they are the main source from which other groups derive their labour supply-in other words, they are the favoured resort of the "black-birders," the purveyors of contract labour, slave-catchers in all but name. It is for this reason that Germany has stipulated that the arrangement now existing between the two countries concerning the right to "freely engage labourers" shall be extended to the newlyceded islands. This is an ugly condition to be imposed upon the country which has passed into law the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, and it goes far to suggest that the measure is at present somewhat loosely enforced.

It is possible that great benefits may have already accrued to Great Britain by the conclusion of the agreement, that it may have smoothed our path to victory in the Transvaal, laid the foundation of better relations with Germany, and tightened the natural bonds which unite us with America. If it has done any of these things, a good work will have been accomplished, though I would that other means had been found for attaining the end desired. Although Lord Salisbury depreciated the price which has been paid, the Colonial Secretary, who is essentially a business man, deems it somewhat considerable-the equivalent even of a pair of alliances. Let us hope that the prompt and not too polite repudiation accorded to

this idea by the future masters of Samoa is not ominous of the general effect of the treaty. The agreement, so far as Samoa and Tonga are concerned, may be described as absolutely devoid of moral considerations-we use as an article of traffic the independence of Samoa, which we were in honour bound to defend; we accept as the reward of our perfidy the sovereignty of Tonga, which was not Germany's to dispose of, and which we have promised shall never be taken away save with the freest consent of the people. We gave this pledge, not for the first time, in 1890, and probably renewed it early last year, when H.M.S. Tauranga visited the islands as a · counter-demonstration to alleged threats manufactured by New Zealand journalism and credited on flimsy foundation to a German consular official.

England's prestige among the natives of the South Pacific was based upon her representatives' reputation for integrity of purpose and love of even-handed justice. The people believed that these characteristics reflected the disposition of the British Government and nation, and, as a consequence, our flag and rule have usually been welcomed with a cheerful acquiescence in marked contrast with the reception given to other foreign domination. Always, in their frequent grievous troubles of the past, one hope animated the Samoans-that justice and liberty-loving England would sooner or later come to their aid. They hearkened to her voice as interpreted by her officials, even when obedience meant sorrow to themselves, and again and again they voluntarily offered to sacrifice to her their much-valued independence. For all these proofs of esteem we have no thought to-day; we only remember that during recent months the people declined to be regarded as a mere pawn to be moved hither and thither according to the promptings of international animosities or personal ambitions. It will be small wonder if, after the experiences which have recently fallen to their lot, the Samoans accept with resignation the uncertain future now in store for them. And with the natives themselves in the same connection, I must class many whites resident in Upolu, who in days gone by were prominent in hostility to the oft-threatened German annexation. These are subjects of neither Germany nor EnglandRoman Catholic missionaries, and American, French and Scandinavian storekeepers, who, because of their religious faith, their influence with the natives, or their independence of character, were, during the first quarter of 1899, as much the objects of naval and official suspicion as the arch-rebel Mataafa himself.

When the Badger left Apia on July 18th she carried away several thousand rifles, which had been surrendered by the Samoans in obedience to the Joint Commission. The latter, however, on June 1st, proclaimed that the arms would be "returned to their owners after the restoration of peace, or full compensation made

therefor." No one, of course, believed for a single moment in the first alternative, but all hoped that the Powers would soon take action to redeem the second promise. Many of the owners relinquished in these guns the last possession which the war had left them, yet to this day the debt of the Powers remains unpaid. The same ship also carried the first instalment of a number of claims for losses sustained during the disturbances of January and March-April, which had been filed by subjects of Great Britain, the United States, Germany, and other countries, and by duly-appointed lawyers representing aboriginal Samoans; and it was understood that these and other claims of like character, which might be subsequently sent to Washington, would receive the early consideration of the Powers. Almost simultaneously with the announcement of the Anglo-German agreement, it was reported from Washington that a convention had been signed, subject to ratification by the United States Senate, providing for the adjustment of these claims by arbitration. There was in this telegram no suggestion that the right of the natives to a hearing would be questioned; but, as I read it,. Mr. McKinley's message to Congress clearly limits the terms of reference to the claims of "white residents." I have nothing to say against the latter; indeed, I am of opinion that the Powers should be just, even to generosity, in their treatment of all appeals. I have availed myself of opportunities offered to peruse many of the sworn statements which accompany the claims, and can promise any arbitrator before whom these documents may be placed several hours of very sensational reading-narratives of a state of war which never was declared, of religious aggression, of arrests without warrant or apparent cause, of imprisonments without pretence of trial or examination, of a physician inhibited from attendance on the sick, of a clergyman thwarted when seeking to bury his dead, of plantations ruined, houses wrecked and looted.

For the great majority of the white residents who suffered material loss and even "moral and intellectual damage," I entertain great sympathy, and am hopeful and do not doubt that the proposed arbitration will secure for them a large measure of compensation. But what of the native claims, which appear to have suddenly escaped the attention of the Powers, now elated with their diplomatic triumphs and traffic in lands and people; are all obligations and promises to the brown man to be lightly forsworn? The Samoans may be savages and "uncivilised," fit subjects for international exploitation, all that their severest critics may please to picture them; but responsibility for the events of the past year rests less with them than with the nations which for more than a generation have made Samoa a political football—which have turned deaf ears to the repeated warnings of their own representatives, and which, when the expected happened, assumed an attitude of pained surprise, and permitted

a fair country to be ravaged by fire and the sword. During the so-called war of March-April last, native property of the estimated value of nearly £36,000 was ruthlessly destroyed, scores of villages and plantations were wiped out of existence, over 850 houses and 100 boats were burned, and some 140 canoes were ruined or carried away. It may be that all these operations were right and proper, that inexorable fate demands that by such means the smaller nations must be taught to reverence the great; yet the very least the latter can do is to make pretence of being faithful to their word. They promised the Samoans an inquiry into the rights and wrongs of recent troubles, but such inquiry has never taken place; they pledged themselves (or at least encouraged the development of such belief) that claims for compensation would be considered regardless of the colour of the claimants, and now they calmly propose to ignore the natives altogether. This may be expedient, and venial, therefore, in the estimation of diplomacy; but can it be said to accord with those principles of justice and humanity which are supposed to exercise such predominant sway in the councils of civilisation? In the case of Germany, whose prime interest it should be to secure and retain the native goodwill, the new departure seems worse than a crime- -a blunder most difficult to reconcile with her astute phil-Samoan policy of the past twelve months.

Since my return from Samoa I have been kept well informed of events in the islands by trusted correspondents, representing all shades of local opinion. My latest advices regarding the outlook are the reverse of satisfactory, and justify the fears I expressed immediately after and respecting the departure of the Joint Commission. Of the labours of the Commission as an integer, it would be unprofitable to say much; they have been almost completely nullified by the issue of subsequent negotiations between the Powers, and, even were this not the case, it would be quite as easy to minimise as magnify their importance. However, to one conspicuous circumstance of the mission reference is indispensable. The Commissioners, in their joint report, allude to the malign influence of the tridominium upon officials in Samoa, who have been wont to be considered on one side or the other according to their nationality, “and inevitably end by becoming more or less partisans." This criticism has been likened in Samoa, where the demeanour of the several Commissioners was regarded with natural anxiety, and often amusement, to that missile of the Australian aboriginal which sometimes returns to a careless owner with staggering effect. Of the reports of Mr. Bartlett Tripp to the Department of State, and of Baron von Sternberg to the Foreign Office in Berlin, I can say nothing; all the information I have concerning them is derived from conversations with the respective authors. This much, however, can be remarked with propriety and truth, that both gentlemen recognised that the

main purpose of their mission was not to save from criticism possibly erring countrymen, but to reconcile the natives and bring about more cordial relations between conflicting white nationalities. To Mr. Eliot's despatch to the Marquis of Salisbury, published in the Parliamentary paper "Samoa No. 1 (1899)," I do not propose to devote exhaustive remark, though the document possesses for me peculiar and, I may even say, fascinating interest. Its chief importance, at the present moment, will be found in the writer's pronounced aversion to Mataafa, and the lack of sympathy for every political element in the islands which had been guilty or suspected of disapproving the actions of the powers that were.

Until I read Mr. Eliot's despatch I never properly appreciated the significance of the familiar adage, "Outsiders often see most of the game." It were easy, if space permitted, to instance many points where my memory fails to coincide with Mr. Eliot's narrative. I will, however, content myself with but two illustrations. He tells Lord Salisbury that when the Commissioners invited Mataafa to Apia, in order that the chiefs of the rival faction might meet and become reconciled to him, Mataafa "sent back an arrogant answer and refused." This is history writ dangerously brief, and I venture to think that the incident should have been either ignored or illumined by reference to the chief Uo's speech on the occasion, and the Mataafans' protest that the suggested meeting would be better postponed until Tanu and Tamasese had evinced inclination to obey the orders of the Commission, issued at the time of the surrender of arms, and reiterated at least once-on June 16th. I have never heard that the other Commissioners considered Mataafa's reply arrogant or other than reasonable; moreover, it might be pointed out that the immediate result of the meeting was a peremptory mandate from the Commission that Mulinuu should be forthwith evacuated by the adherents of Malietoa. We may also read in Mr. Eliot's despatch the following account of the natives' assent to the scheme of self-government proposed by the Commissioners:

"It was accepted by the whole meeting, and the next day thirteen chiefs from each side signed a formal declaration of acceptance. Tanu and Tamasese also affixed their signatures, but Mataafa declined to appear on the pretext of illhealth. He may be held to be bound by the signatures of his chiefs, but his repeated refusal to meet the other party and make peace inspires the gravest apprehensions for the future. We addressed a letter to him reminding him that his further stay in Samoa depended on the observance of the promises which he had made before returning."

The writer might, it appears to me, have advantageously expanded his recital. No harm, to say the least, would have been done had he informed Lord Salisbury that at the meeting at Mulinuu a long letter was read from Mataafa, of which these are the concluding sentences: