judge sitting in his High Court alone, and without a jury. Surely comment on such a system is unnecessary.

When the Premiers of the different Australasian colonies met in Sydney at the InterColonial Conference of 1881, this question of the High Commissioner and High Court was brought before them. They considered that there should be some means of appealing against the decision of a solitary judge acting without a jury, especially in cases of capital punishment. Sir John Gorrie, who presided over the High Court in Fiji at that time, attempted to refute this view in a long official reply. He admitted that it is always a great relief to a judge to know that an appeal against his decision is possible. "More espe

cially," he adds, "must this feeling animate a judge who is obliged by the law he administers, and by the necessities of the case, to be the judge both of the facts and the law."

"This peculiarity of the High Commissioner's Court," continues Judge Gorrie, "would, I apprehend, be an insuperable barrier to any such appeal as proposed. . . . A trial for murder without a jury would be alien to the other colonies' system of jurisprudence, and to

enable them, on appeal, to find a murderer guilty without such trial, they must have additional powers." And then, with fine humour, Judge Gorrie goes on to say that the delegates know best whether there would be any chance of passing through their respective Legislatures a Bill giving to judges such additional powers. "Moreover," adds the Judge, "unless we are to shut the door of justice on the whole native race of the Pacific as against evil-doers amongst her Majesty's subjects," “we must and do, under the powers of the Orders in Council, receive evidence on affirmation of those who are either not Christians or only nominally Christian, and who do not understand the nature of an oath in the technical sense of the English law." "This also," he considers, "would be repugnant to the proceedings of some, if not all, of the supreme courts of Australia." Well done, Judge Gorrie! Why some only? Is there one to whom it is not happily repugnant?

And how about the innocent white men butchered by the same natives, as many have been? Is there to be no thought for the widows and families of these men who are left destitute and mourning in every Australasian

city, and even in your own Fiji? Has it not been laid down authoritatively that over these natives your court has no jurisdiction, and that against these natives a British subject must seek redress in vain? And, your Honour must know perfectly well that no evidence is, on the whole, so untrustworthy as the uncorroborated evidence of these natives. If you do not know this, permit me to assure you that it is a solemn fact-a fact that would be admitted by every impartial consul, naval officer, land commissioner, or missionary in Fiji and in the islands over which your Court holds despotic sway.

I have not the honour of knowing Judge Gorrie, but Fiji settlers complain very loudly that, excellent man in other respects, he has all his life been connected with Aborigines Protection Societies, and accustomed only to the peculiar ideas of governing their fellowcountrymen which are held by officials in a Crown colony. They say that on these accounts his bias is strong against them, and it must be admitted that a careful perusal of his letters on this question warrants the assertion. Still more so do his denunciations of a well-known Australian journalist, to whom he refers as

being "bitter because of his failure to stir up sedition in Fiji." They leave a strong impression that in this matter of bias the Fiji people are right, and yet how tremendous is the unchecked power which the orders in council place in the hands of the judge and in the hands of a High Commissioner, who is also unfortunately human, and therefore equally prone to err.

Few of our countrymen are they who would not prefer dealing with Germans or French than with this High Court and High Commissioner. The men-of-war of both those nations are always ready to give assistance to the traders of every nationality, and this it is the simplest justice to admit. My friend Jibberik at Majuro tapu'd a trader with whom he had a quarrel, and consequently none of the natives. dared to deal with that particular trader. was an Englishman, but his complaint to the first German man-of-war obtained redress. The case was fully inquired into. Jibberik was ordered to pay 300 dollars in cocoanuts, and warned against any interference with traders in the future. He was told that if he suffered a wrong, he must take his complaint to the first man-of-war that came,

He

just as Europeans were required themselves to do.

Majuro, in which Jibberik reigns, is German territory, but similar cases have occurred in islands unoccupied by any civilized power. On the other hand, the High Commissioner has officially stated that "the British Government disclaim all obligation to protect or interfere on behalf of persons voluntarily placing themselves in positions of danger in a savage country." The Government may interfere, but only as an act of war, for which adequate cause must be shown. Among these adequate causes a grievance such as I have referred to, however injurious and unjust, is certainly not included.

Our naval officers have happily not always accepted this dictum, and Majuro traders speak gratefully of the benefit they derived from good advice plainly given to King Jibberik by Captain Murray, of H.M.S. Emerald, and given also to other chiefs and kings. But all agree that there is an increasing hesitation, a plainly growing dislike, in our navy to incur the responsibility of interference, and to face the trouble in England which that interference has often brought upon them.

About three years ago a trader was mur