1838 - Beecham, J. Remarks Upon the Latest Official Documents Relating to New Zealand. - Postscript, p 47-63

[Image of page 47]

POSTSCRIPT.

JUST as I was concluding this letter, I received a copy of a pamphlet entitled, "The Latest Official Documents relating to New Zealand, with Introductory Observations, by Samuel Hinds, D.D., Vicar of Yardley, Herts., and one of the Committee of the New-Zealand Association." From this production I learn that your apprehension was well-founded, and that the Association are endeavouring to make those despatches subservient to their own purposes. Dr. Hinds gives them at length, and from thence argues generally the necessity which exists for Colonization; but as he does not attempt to explain how this proposed remedy is to meet every part of the New-Zealand case, there is nothing in his observations relating to the despatches which calls for additional remark. I shall not go again at length into the general question in reply to the reverend Doctor's animadversions on my former publication, as well as that of Mr. Coates. I had no party purpose to promote, but endeavoured, at least, honestly and impartially, on public grounds, to examine the proposals of the Association; and the manner in which my remarks have been noticed by the periodical press encourages me to hope, that I have not in reality, any more than in intention, transgressed the rules of honourable controversy. By the decision of the candid public I am willing to abide; and shall merely dwell on a few particulars for the sake of explanation.

1. Dr. Hinds cannot conceive how it is possible that the presence of such a Colony as they propose to form in New Zealand should, as I have shown would probably

[Image of page 48]

be the case, prove a hinderance to the Missionaries in their work of Christianizing the natives, "That religion and morality should be actually exposed to danger from it, this," he says, "does seem to be inexplicable." As I was prevented, by the great number of topics which I had to notice, from enlarging in my former pamphlet on this view of the subject, a few additional remarks, for the purpose of explaining more fully the grounds of our apprehension, may not be unnecessary. We have stated our fears, that, were a Colony formed in New Zealand, the Missionaries might become involved in the disputes which would probably arise respecting the sale of lands; and that the feelings created by such disputes in the minds of the natives would indispose them to listen to the instructions of the Missionaries. In thus expressing ourselves, we were not indulging mere chimerical fears. In the course of the very last year only, several of our native teachers, and others, have been shot, and the very existence of our principal Station at Mangungu endangered, by a dispute which had arisen in consequence of one party having sold a tract of land to which the other laid claim. What has thus so recently happened might, and, we think, probably would, happen again. The Association may calculate that they could introduce such regulations respecting the purchase of land, as would prevent disputes; but those who are best acquainted with the tenure on which the New Zealanders hold their land, are of opinion that if would be a task of much more than ordinary difficulty for any Colonial Court or authority to harmonize the various claims which many parties are often found to have on the same property. Nothing would be more easy than for the Colonial Courts to pronounce many of those claims frivolous and unfounded; but would the parties who, according

[Image of page 49]

to New-Zealand law, or custom, might urge them rightfully, be willing to renounce them on the decision of the Colonial Courts? Unless we can be assured of this, we must still indulge the apprehension, that, were a Colony formed, such disputes would again occur as that which so recently nearly led to the destruction of our Mission on the Hokianga,

We have further expressed our fears, that when the natives should see their lands and forests, their harbours and facilities for commerce, rapidly passing into the hands of the Colonists, suspicions would be awakened in their minds that the Missionaries themselves had proved their betrayers, and invited their own people to come and possess themselves of the country. And neither, in this instance, were we indulging in conjecture, but were repeating the lessons of sober experience. It is a fact, that a suspicion of this kind was actually excited in the minds of the New-Zealand Chiefs who invited and accompanied the first Missionaries that visited their shores. They were made to believe by some one, before they embarked at Sydney, that the Missionaries would lead the way for their countrymen to follow and take possession of the land. Mr. Nicholas, to whom I have already referred, as accompanying the Rev. Samuel Marsden and the first Missionaries to New Zealand, states, that, for some time, the conduct of the Chiefs under the influence of this persuasion was such as to induce Mr. Marsden to propose to turn back to Sydney, and abandon the project of commencing a Mission at New Zealand. Nor is this the only case to which we can refer. Very recently, a Chief in the neighbourhood of the Hokianga, refused to sell the Missionaries a plot of ground for the erection of suitable Mission premises; lest, if he should begin to sell land, he might

[Image of page 50]

be tempted, as others of his countrymen had been, to part with so much as to injure himself and his people: and all the arguments which Mr. Turner, the Missionary, could employ, were not sufficient to move the Chief from his purpose. He was willing that the Missionary should re-purchase a piece of land which had formerly been sold to a European, "before," as the Chief said, "their eyes were opened;" but he would not sell any of his own. It is, therefore, not without good reason we apprehend that injurious suspicions against the Missionaries would be excited in the minds of the natives, by purchases of land made on so large a scale as is proposed by the Association. By the way, it may be remarked, that this latter fact has a very important bearing on the general question of colonizing New Zealand. It shows that the natives are getting "their eyes opened" as to the consequences which must result from the sale of their possessions; and that they will not be found so willing as the Association anticipate, to make any further extensive transfer. If they are now manifesting a jealousy lest the Missionaries, whom they hail as their best friends--as benefactors who have gone among them for no other purpose than to do them good--lest even they should obtain any considerable portion of land, how much more unwilling will they be to dispose of large quantities to any other description of persons whatever!

Once more: The obstruction to Missionary labours arising out of the evil example of many of our countrymen and other white persons, is of itself sufficient to awaken the most serious apprehensions respecting the formation of a Colony. This is the most formidable obstacle with which the Missionaries have to contend in the islands of the South Sea generally. The Missionaries in New Zealand complain loudly of it. One

[Image of page 51]

if them, writing from the Hokianga, on the 1st of June, last year, says, "The religious public at home are perhaps in a great measure ignorant of the trials to which Missionaries are exposed, from the wicked example of white people, who seduce the natives into sin, and thus frustrate the exertions of the Missionaries." In another communication, written a few weeks previously, he remarks:-- "A wicked New Zealander will turn on one sometimes, when reproved, and say, in reference to our own countrymen, 'Physician, heal thyself.'" He further adds:--"I could write facts which would make a modest person blush for our countrymen. This should not be concealed, but made known to the friends of the Heathen, that they may be acquainted with the stumbling-blocks in the way of the diffusion of Christianity."

Such is the strain in which the Missionaries write upon this subject. It remains to be seen whether the formation of a Colony would not, in all probability, increase this obstruction to Missionary exertions, rather than remove it. I would ask, Do the Association intend to put down immorality? They propose to protect the natives in their persons and property from the violence and injustice of our countrymen; but will they protect them from the ruinous example of the licentious and immoral conduct of the whites? Will the colonial laws be so framed as to repress immorality more effectually than the laws of our own country? To what an awful extent sabbath-breaking, profane swearing, intemperance, debauchery, and such like vices are practised among ourselves with impunity, is matter of general observation; and I see no reason whatever to conclude, that the colonial laws will be stricter than our own against that immorality which does not immediately

[Image of page 52]

disturb the public peace. Suppose, then, the establishment of a Colony should succeed far better than I anticipate in shielding the natives from violent outrage, they would, notwithstanding, remain exposed as now to the corrupting influence of that immoral example which so many of our countrymen place before their eyes. But this would not be all. Things in this respect would not remain as they are. The hinderances to Missionary endeavours arising out of the bad example of our countrymen would, if we are to judge from experience, be increased by a Colony. The Missionary whom I have already quoted is well acquainted with all our Missions in the South Seas, and he thus states the result of his personal observation:-- "It is a lamentable fact, that where European society increases, there is in proportion also a laxity of morals among the Heathen with whom they reside." We are not, then, indulging in unreasonable alarm, when we express our apprehensions, that the influence of a Colony would probably counteract Missionary teaching, and injure the morals of the natives. This has hitherto been the effect of an increase of European society in the islands of the South Sea; and what guarantee have we that the same effect will not follow the formation of a Colony in New Zealand? We know what class of persons do actually emigrate to our Colonies. We see that they are not by any means all truly religious persons; and I see no reason to conclude, that, after the utmost care which might be taken in their selection, the average character of the Colonists who should go out to New Zealand would be better than the average character of the parent community at home. It would then, as I think, inevitably follow, that the evil examples which our countrymen now unhappily furnish to the New Zealanders would be very considerably multi-

[Image of page 53]

plied on the arrival of the new Colonists. Many of them would, no doubt, be persons who, although just and upright in their dealings, would, by their open immorality, or neglect of religion, and worldly-mindedness, increase the difficulties of the Missionaries, in their endeavours to spread Christianity among the natives. Nor would their pernicious example be sufficiently counterbalanced by the good conduct of the better class of Colonists. The presence of the most virtuous Colony which could be formed is not needed to aid the Missionaries in their undertaking. All they want is, to be protected from the intrusions of their own lawless countrymen, and other whites, and to be allowed to prosecute their work of philanthropy without hinderance or interruption.

These remarks are made with reference to the Colonization of New Zealand generally; for, although Dr. Hinds says, "It has been proposed to fix on a site for the Colony somewhere in the Southern Island, in the neighbourhood of Cook's Strait," there are, in the official publications of the Association, strong indications of an intention to commence in the Northern Island, in the vicinity of the Missionary Stations. Should, however, the Association be allowed to plant a Colony on the Southern Island, in Cook's Straits, they would even there be almost in immediate contact with the Wesleyan Missionaries; for there is reason to expect, that ere this they may have commenced a Mission at Taranake, at the opposite side of Cook's Straits, in the Northern Island. And were they to commence in the Southern Island, would they remain there, and not seek to occupy the "million of acres" which, according to one of their own number, they already have at their disposal at the Hokianga and the Bay of Thames, in the very centre of the Missions of

[Image of page 54]

both the Church and Wesleyan Missionary Societies? It would be easy to enlarge on this subject; but perhaps enough has been advanced to show that the danger to which the cause of "religion and morality" would be exposed by the introduction of a Colony into New Zealand is not a subject so "inexplicable" as Dr. Hinds imagines.

2. In replying to Mr. Coates, Mr. Wakefield animadverted upon that gentleman's remark, --that gain or mercantile profit was the leading object of the Association; and appeared to think, that he had shown the incorrectness of such remark by referring to that part of the plan which provides that the affairs of the Association shall be managed by a Committee, who are to have no pecuniary interest in the undertaking. This did not appear to me to be any answer to Mr. Coates; and I consequently argued upon the same principle respecting the solicitude or distrust which must naturally be cherished respecting the philanthropic professions of persons who are avowedly associated together for mercantile purposes. To this Dr. Hinds refers, as "a mis-statement" which ought not to be persisted in; and says, "It is asserted both by Mr. Coates and Mr. Beecham, that the administrators of the Colony are to have some pecuniary interest in it." Indeed, I have not yet said any such thing. In the very passage which the Reverend Gentleman quotes, I remark, "If the Association were a number of gentlemen, united together on the same principle as that on which Missionary Societies are based, having no purposes of their own, but aiming solely to promote the welfare of the natives, their arguments in favour of Colonization, as the only remedy for the evils inflicted by our countrymen upon the New Zealanders, would deserve most serious consideration." In thus speak-

[Image of page 55]

ing of the Association, I referred to it in the same sense as to the Missionary Societies. By the Missionary Societies I did not mean merely their respective Committees of Management, but literally and truly the Societies themselves. In like manner, I had no particular reference to the Committee or Administrators of the Association: I spoke of the Association itself. Now, does Dr. Hinds really mean to say, that I have made any "mis-statement," in representing the Association itself as avowedly formed for mercantile purposes? Will he deny that the Association, with the persons who are to find the money for carrying on the undertaking, do not merely calculate on deriving from it pecuniary profit, but make the mercantile part of then plan the leading object, and give to philanthropy only a secondary place? I have read with care the book published by the Association, explanatory of their "Principles, Objects, and Plans," and certainly understand this to be the case. They do not commence by enlarging upon the necessity of exertions for imparting to the New Zealanders the blessings of Christianity and civilization, and then state that they have determined to found a Colony solely for the purpose of accomplishing this philanthropic object. No: this is not the order of the book. The first chapter commences with Colonization, and it is dwelt upon as the source of national greatness and wealth. The argument runs thus, --"Ships, Colonies, Commerce! It is to these that England is chiefly indebted for her pre-eminent wealth, and even for the greatness of her domestic numbers. The old fashion of colonizing was, therefore, a very good one for this country." 1 They next proceed to sketch out what I

[Image of page 56]

may call the mercantile part of their plan; and it is not until we reach the following chapter that we hear any thing of the philanthropy of their scheme. Then we find it referred to in such language as the following: "This, however, is not a plan of mere Colonization: it has for its object to civilize as well as to colonize." Now, if all this does not show that the mercantile projects of the Association occupy the first place in their plan, and their civilizing objects only the second, I know not what language means. But if I understand aright the Association's own statements, then is my former reasoning sound and unobjectionable. Though it should prove correct, that the Managing Committee or "Administrators" are to have no pecuniary interest in the undertaking, yet they will, of course, be bound to conduct the affairs of the Colony according to these fundamental principles; and thus, even with a disinterested Managing Committee it will necessarily follow that they will have to look first at the mercantile part of their plan, and to subordinate to this the philanthropy of the undertaking: and it will moreover follow that when the mercantile interests of the Colony shall clash with the interests of the natives, (and clash they inevitably will, if the voice of experience is to be heeded,) the mercantile interests will naturally preponderate, and the interests of the natives, being subordinate in the plan, will, in consequence, suffer. Sound philosophy teaches, that the stronger principle must ever triumph over the weaker; and it is thus to be concluded, that in this case the leading and, consequently, the stronger principle of mercantile interest will prevail over the secondary and weaker principle of philanthropy.

I am aware that this explanation will prove unsatisfactory to the Association, who appear unwilling that

[Image of page 57]

objections to the proposed Colony should in any way be directed against themselves. Another of its members, who has read these "Remarks," in the first impression, pronounces me "profoundly in error," and expresses his astonishment that I should so thoroughly misunderstand the nature of the Association and their plan. He states, that they are not a private trading Company, --they are only a temporary Association, formed for a public purpose, in which they seek no advantage for themselves over any other of Her Majesty's subjects; --that they have acted provisionally, for the purpose of collecting information about New Zealand, and of devising a plan for its Colonization; -- that if this plan be adopted by Parliament, the New-Zealand Association, having done all that it proposed, will ipso facto expire; --and that there will remain a Board of Commissioners responsible to the Crown and Parliament, tied down by an Act of Parliament more sweeping and stringent in favour of the Aborigines than any thing ever before dreamed of, --a purely Government measure, without any trading characteristic whatever, acting under an Act of Parliament and through a Board of Commissioners, &c. Be it so; but at present, he will admit, this Board of Commissioners, and the Colony which they are to manage, have no separate existence: the whole concern is as yet included in and represented by the Association. Now, although my objection lies against the proposed Colony, yet as the Association are the only persons before the public, and include in their own body the elements of the future Colony, in order to make myself understood by the general reader, I argue against the Association as the representative of the Colony, --in fact, the Colony itself in embryo: and I am justified in this by the Association themselves. In their "Statement of the

[Image of page 58]

Objects of the New-Zealand Association," at page 8, they say, --

What can be plainer than this? The Association thus explicitly identify with themselves the persons who are to compose the Colony: "A considerable number of intending settlers," they say, "have already joined the Association" and they invite others to imitate the example. From their own "Statement" it is thus evident that they who now object to the formation of a Colony must, in order to make themselves intelligible, speak of and deal with the Association as representing the projected Colony. When the Association shall cease to exist, and a Colony shall be actually formed, the "Colony" and its "Administrators," or "Board of Commissioners," will then be before the public, and can be dealt with in their own proper and distinctive character. But even then the same objections which are now urged against the Association will lie against the Colony, whatever may be the character of the Board of Commissioners, or the principles of their Administration. It is the Colony proposed to be planted in New Zealand, and not the character of its Administration in this country, to which we object. What we dread is, not so much the "Board of Commissioners" in London, as that which the

[Image of page 59]

Association represent to be the foundation of the whole measure, that body of intending settlers possessed of a sufficient capital for carrying their own purposes into effect, who are to go and fix themselves in New Zealand; and who, for the reason that they have advanced the greater part of the indispensable funds, will be most deeply interested in the success of the undertaking. This is the thing we fear. We are afraid that the Colonists who have embarked their capital, perhaps their worldly all, in the undertaking, will be so intent on carrying their own purposes into effect, that it will not be in the power of the most virtuous and public-spirited Board of Commissioners, on this side of the globe, effectually to watch over the rights, and promote the interests, of the Aborigines.

I have entered into this explanation, in order that we may not dispute about words. I must, once for all, say to Dr. Hinds, and to his friend whom I have last quoted, that when I speak of the Association, I neither intend the future Administrators of the Colony, nor refer to the temporary character of the present Association. The "intending settlers" being, as yet, "joined" to, and one with, the Association; and one of its most distinguished members having long been a large landed proprietor in New Zealand, and another appearing as a candidate for the Governorship of the Colony; I invariably contemplate the Association in its collective capacity, and speak of it as the only existing representative of the Colony, indeed, the embryo Colony itself.

3. If, however, I have made no "mis-statement" respecting the future "Administrators" of the Colony, on another point Dr. Hinds has certainly greatly misstated my meaning. Referring to their proposal

[Image of page 60]

respecting the appointment of a Bishop, he says, "It seems, indeed, to have been almost converted into an occasion for reproach." "'What,'" it is said, "'can a Bishop do? Must he not depend on the Societies established in this country to furnish his means and his instruments?'" And this question is given in inverted commas as though it were a quotation from my pamphlet. I am sure Dr. Hinds is incapable of intentional misrepresentation; but if he will turn again to the pamphlet, he will discover that I have said nothing like this. I have put no such question: and my argument goes upon the principle, not that the Bishop could do nothing, as he must depend upon others for means and instruments, but that the Association do not mean to make provision out of the funds of the Colony for the instruction of the natives; and, to prove this, I quote their own words respecting the appointment of a Bishop, to show that they, not the Bishop, were depending on the Societies established in this country to furnish the means and the instruments for instructing the natives. I refer to this misstatement, because I am unwilling to be thought capable of viewing with indifference, or something worse, the zealous labours of a Christian Bishop.

4. I would briefly advert to one more point. Dr, Hinds does not approve of the reference, in my concluding appeal, to the distracted affairs of Canada; and remarks, that "to point to the disasters of individuals or of nations, and authoritatively to pronounce that they are judgments and signs from heaven, is surely a presumptuous use of the doctrine of Divine Providence." I think with the Reverend Gentleman, that to regard the disasters of individuals as judgments from heaven would be presumptuous in a high degree. But the consideration of God's providential dealings

[Image of page 61]

with nations, is quite another thing. Many divines who have been the ornaments of the church to which Dr. Hinds belongs, as well as sound theologians of all orthodox communions, have argued, that as the Sovereign Judge will not, at the future general judgment of mankind, deal with men collectively, but individually; his displeasure at those public sins which men commit in their collective or national character is generally indicated in the present life, in his providential dealings with them as nations: and it is further understood, that one great end of those Scripture histories which describe the judgments of Heaven against guilty nations is, to furnish an illustration of that rule of retribution which he applies to them in His providential administration of the affairs of our world. That a hasty and presumptuous application of this rule is not to be made in any particular case, I readily admit. But if the avenging visitations of the Almighty upon the sinful nations of antiquity have been expressly recorded for our admonition and warning; and if it be a duty which Christ has recognised and enforced upon his people, that they should observe and study "the signs of the times;" then must I conclude that when a nation has been employed, during successive generations, in carrying out a system of Colonization which has invariably involved the hapless Aborigines in suffering and ruin, --that nation will do well to pause and think upon its ways, when such unnatural contests and troubles arise in its Colonies, as have just passed under review in Canada, and will act wisely and scripturally by listening to the admonitory lesson, and resolving, from henceforth, "to cease to do evil, and learn to do well."

[Image of page 62]

In conclusion, I would observe, that my apprehensions respecting the proposed Colonization of New Zealand have been greatly strengthened within the last few weeks. At the date of the latest communications from that country, it appears that the natives are already beginning to show considerable jealousy respecting the advances made by the whites. A Baron de Thierry, who, some years ago, purchased forty thousand acres of land at the Hokianga, for thirty-six axes, (!) had recently arrived with a number of attendants, to take possession of it, and exercise his alleged sovereign rights; but the Chiefs peremptorily rejected his claims both to the land and to the sovereignty. The natives, generally, who had formerly parted with their lands to English purchasers, it is stated, are now saying, " We have eaten the tobacco, and worn out the blankets, we received for our land; and now we have nothing left. " It is further said, that three or four of the principal Chiefs, of whom Nene, whose influence, it has been seen, was sufficient to put an end to the recent alarming war near the Bay of Islands, was one, were proposing to retire towards the north, on account of the encroachments which the English are making upon the lands in the neighbourhood of the Hokianga and elsewhere. In this state of things, it must be obvious that the introduction of a Colony would be a hazardous experiment. Were the feeling of jealousy and alarm which is already evinced by the New Zealanders to receive such additional excitement as could not fail to be occasioned by the arrival of a few ships filled with emigrants, it can scarcely be doubted, that, at a period much earlier than we at first anticipated, a crisis would arrive such as cannot be contemplated by the friends of humanity without the most serious alarm.

[Image of page 63]

Let every one now ponder well the circumstances in which it is proposed to colonize New Zealand. It is not yet three years since the New Zealanders made a formal declaration of their national independence. 2 In the same year that this was announced, (1835,) the British Government recognised their independence, and gave them a flag. How easily they may be influenced practically to assert their independence, appears from the reception which they have given to the Baron de Thierry; how reluctant they will be to make any extensive surrender of their lands may be concluded from the dissatisfaction which they are already manifesting with respect to the encroachments of the English! And yet, alike regardless of the danger which must attend the experiment, and of our plighted national faith to maintain the independence of New Zealand, the Association are calling upon the Government, the Legislature, and the public, to support a measure which has for its object to alienate, on a large scale, the lands and sovereign rights of the New Zealanders, and to reduce them to the condition of British subjects.