The Treaty of Waitangi; or, how New Zealand became a British Colony. Buick Thomas Lindsay

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ had induced Ministers to think that their former view was not the correct one. What had happened to so influence the Ministerial mind was the receipt of those important despatches from Mr. Busby, the British Resident, and from Captain Hobson, in which both these officers urged the need for a more vigorous policy on the part of the Colonial Office in its relations with New Zealand. The opinions of the Government, therefore, now approximated somewhat more closely to those of the Association, but there was still some hesitancy in proceeding by way of Act of Parliament. The Colonial Department, Lord Glenelg said, had fully considered the matter, and were satisfied that the measures desired might be carried into complete effect without applying to Parliament at all; and that they were consequently prepared, in the exercise of the power of the Crown vested in the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, to give to the Association a Charter of Incorporation, being a Charter of government similar to those which were granted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the companies which founded the thirteen great colonies in America. Nine days after this interview the Association received an official letter from Lord Glenelg, reiterating his offer of a Charter, and calling upon the committee to form their members into a Joint-Stock Company with a subscribed capital sufficient to qualify them for the Charter he proposed to issue. This proposition was wholly unacceptable to the Association for two vital reasons. They had from the beginning declared that they intended to take no private pecuniary interest in the undertaking, and yet in spite of their care in this direction they had been very untruly charged before the public with having no other object than that of private pecuniary gain for themselves. Again some of their most influential leaders were persons, such as distinguished clergymen of the Established Church, holding preferment, who were almost disqualified by that circumstance from becoming members of a Joint-Stock Company, and, therefore, it was unanimously resolved that the offer of the Colonial Secretary could not be accepted. But though this avenue of procedure was closed there was still another open to them, and it was determined to procure, if possible, the passage of a Bill through Parliament, based upon the plan which they had originally placed before the Government. Such a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Baring, but owing to the opposition of the Ministers, including Lord Howick,32 and the widespread impression that the Association was nothing better than a land-sharking Company, the measure was defeated by a large majority.

      The discussion which was provoked by this Bill was responsible for concentrating public attention upon two points, namely, the objects which animated the Association, and, secondly, the diversity of opinion which existed on the subject of British sovereignty in New Zealand. One of the most ardent advocates of the Association was the Rev. Dr. Hinds, a clergyman of the Established Church, who had been greatly impressed by the social stagnation in England, and who had joined the committee in the hope of providing some outlet for the country's allegedly "surplus" population. Dr. Hinds told the Committee of the House of Lords in 183833 that he considered the colonisation of New Zealand expedient because of the number of persons of various classes in Great Britain who were anxious to settle themselves in a colony in New Zealand; persons who from their character, station, and other considerations, had a claim on the British Parliament to facilitate that object. The feeling, he assured their Lordships, in favour of such a colony was deep seated and sincere, supporting his contention by quoting letters he had received from Scotland,34 where, he said, existing conditions were clamant for an immediate remedy. That remedy, he contended, the colonisation of New Zealand would supply. "There is," he said, "an abundance of capital and an abundance of labour in Great Britain, and the abundance of capital the capitalists can hardly employ so as to be sufficiently remunerative by any investment in this country. At the same time there is a great mass of the labouring population who can no longer obtain sufficient wages to keep up what have become the necessaries of life to them. The proposed colony would therefore be a measure of relief to both the capitalists and labourers."s

      Dr. Hinds concluded his instructive picture of social England at that date by urging the colonisation of New Zealand on the general ground that settlement was already proceeding there along irregular lines, and without any "combining principle." This fundamental requirement to all well-ordered societies, he thought, was provided for in the plan of the Association, and he proceeded to explain in very explicit terms the two cardinal points of its constitution – its Government, and the principles which would control its land transactions.

      The executive authority of the Association was, he said, to be placed in the hands of a Commission resident in England, which Commission was to be merely a provisional body to last so long as might be thought necessary to set the scheme on foot. It was proposed to delegate to these Commissioners the power to make laws, the Crown to determine the extent of the delegation, and many other important matters. A further power of delegation was to be given to a Council in New Zealand, but the responsibility for all that was done was to rest with the Commission at home. "Whatever the powers are, it is only required that they should be exercised for a period of twenty-one years, and the Association would not at all object if it should seem desirable to have the time shortened. At the end of that term the whole Government of the colony would revert to the Crown."

      In its land dealings, the element of profit was to be eliminated by the fact that the whole of the money derived from the sale of land or other sources must be spent in the interests of the colony, and no member was to derive any advantage therefrom: "The money for which the land will be sold by the Commissioners will be a price made up of several sums. It will in the first place contain the sum paid for the land itself, which I conceive will be a very small proportion. It will contain then a sum which will be calculated as sufficient for bringing out labourers to cultivate the land purchased; that will be the largest amount. It is also proposed that there should be a further sum added for the purpose of making roads, bridges, and public works, and it is also proposed that one of the items should be a sum to be expended in making provision for the natives, such as procuring them medical assistance and some instruction in the arts. The price the settlers will pay for the land will be only the price paid for it to the natives, and the additions to that sum will be in fact the purchase money paid for certain benefits which are considered essential to the prosperity of the colony, more especially for a due supply of labour."

      The House of Lords' Committee reported against this scheme on the broadly Imperial grounds that the extension of the colonial possessions of the Crown was a question of public policy with which the Government only should deal. The element of private enterprise was, in their Lordships' opinion, eminently undesirable, holding with Captain Fitzroy, whose personal experience they valued, that "colonisation to be useful must be entirely under the control of the Executive Government of the Mother Country."

      At this point a new and vigorous opponent directed its energies against the plans of the Association. The Church Missionary Society had been watching its proceedings with a jealous eye, and from the moment of the Association's inception had adopted an attitude of hostility towards it. Rightly or wrongly the Society had conceived the notion that the colonisation of the country must have a detrimental effect upon its Missions, and that therefore a sacred duty devolved upon the Committee to frustrate its consummation if it were at all possible so to do.

      Immediately following the publication of the Association's prospectus the Society had communicated with its Missionaries in New Zealand, calling their attention to the scheme, and urging them to furnish the Committee with their views upon it, and so assist the parent body in reaching a conclusion as to its merits. Without waiting for these replies the Committee proceeded to deliberate upon the evidence then available, and on June 6, 1837, formulated the following resolutions, which they ever afterwards consistently made the basis of their attitude towards the Association.

      That the New Zealand Association appears to the Committee highly objectionable on the principle that it proposes to engage the British Legislature to sanction the disposal of portion of a foreign country over which it has no claim to sovereignty or jurisdiction whatever.

      That the Association is further objectionable from its involving the colonisation of New Zealand by Europeans, such colonisation of countries inhabited СКАЧАТЬ