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

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ the Government of New South Wales and the other barbarous lands of which Captain Cook had taken possession in the name of the King. The Islands of New Zealand are as clearly within the prescribed limits as Norfolk Island, Van Dieman's Land, or even New South Wales itself. On November 9, 1814, the Governor and Captain-General of New South Wales and its dependencies, acting on the representation of the Crown, by public proclamation, declared New Zealand to be a Dependency of his Government, and by regular commission of dedimus potestatem appointed Justices of the Peace to act there. Some of the Magistrates so appointed were aboriginal natives of the country. It is plain that they were treated as British subjects. In 1819 again Governor Macquarrie appointed an English Magistrate in New Zealand. This Justice of the Peace exercised the authority so bestowed on him by apprehending offenders and sending them for trial to the seat of Government. In 1823 a British Act of Parliament (4 George IV. cap. 96) extended the jurisdiction of the Courts of New South Wales to New Zealand by name, and also to other places in the Southern Pacific not within the latitudes previously mentioned. Under this authority several persons, we understand, have been tried in New South Wales for offences committed in New Zealand, and we have been informed that property in New Zealand, as well real as personal, has been made the subject of the Bankruptcy law of New South Wales. The authority of the British Crown was frequently enforced by means of ships of war, and although it cannot be asserted that regular government was ever established in New Zealand, far more than was essential to creating British dependency seems to have been performed. The Islands thus continued in a state of dependency until the year 1831, when a series of proceedings commenced by which the sovereignty of Britain may perhaps have been forfeited. An officer was appointed to reside at the Bay of Islands. He presented to certain native chiefs, as from the Crown of England, what was termed "a national flag." This might have been considered a transfer to these chiefs of the British sovereignty, if the Resident had not been 'accredited' to certain officers of the Church Missionary Society, then settled at the Bay of Islands. By the latter act the sovereignty of the Islands would almost seem to have been transferred to these Missionaries. But in October 1835 this diplomatic agent assembled certain native chiefs residing in the Northern part of the North Island, called them a "Confederation," and sanctioned a declaration of Native Independence, to which their names were appended. This last act appears, by all accounts, to have been a mere mockery of its ostensible purport. The tribes of New Zealand are so entirely distinct, so utterly destitute of nationality, as to have no name for the whole country which they inhabit. A national name was invented for this occasion – the words Na Terrene which express the native pronunciation of the English words "New Zealand." The only parties besides to the so-called Declaration of Independence were the chiefs of a few tribes then inhabiting a small part of one of the Islands. These even, inasmuch as their language contains no words to express nationality, sovereignty, or independence, must have been unconscious instruments of the Resident, or of the Missionaries, to whom that officer was accredited, as if they (the Missionaries) had been the sovereigns of New Zealand. If indeed the sovereignty was delegated to the Missionaries they could, being British subjects, have held it as trustees for the Crown. If the sovereignty of the natives was then acknowledged it extended only to a small part of one Island inhabited by the parties to the Declaration. And in either case this mockery of an independent sovereign nationality has been set at naught by the power in whose name it took place, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of British law, and the armed authority of British warships have been exercised since in the same way as before the Bay of Islands' Declaration of Independence.

      "I beg leave," continued Mr. Somes, "to assure your Lordship in the name of my colleagues that we intrude on you with the greatest reluctance. But we have felt that it was incumbent on us especially during the recess of Parliament to convey to your Lordship the information that we have received as to the state of feeling in France on this subject, so that if unhappily the British sovereignty of New Zealand were lost it should be through no fault of ours. We fear that the measures recently adopted by the Colonial Department may, unless promptly remedied, lead to very disastrous results. We are deeply concerned for the fate of a large and most respectable body of our countrymen, who have emigrated under our auspices. Connected as several of us are with the commercial and shipping interests of the country, and knowing therefore how much importance they attach to the British possession of New Zealand, as they have frequently stated in memorials to the Treasury and Board of Trade, we have felt that it was a duty to express to your Lordship the apprehensions which we entertain. We have been told that a French frigate recently sailed for the South Seas with sealed orders, and some of the French newspapers report, with expressions of satisfaction, that the Government of the United States of America has appointed a Consul in New Zealand, to be accredited to 'the Confederation of chiefs,' and has sent him to his destination in a man-of-war, which is to remain under his orders. These statements may be untrue, or only premature, but in either case Captain Hobson's instructions which attach two conditions, either or both of which may be unattainable, to the exercise of any authority by him in New Zealand, namely possession of the land by British subjects, and cession by the natives of the sovereignty over such land, are calculated to invite foreign pretensions which otherwise would never have been imagined."

      This protest was taken most philosophically by Lord Palmerston, who merely passed it on to Lord John Russell, who had now succeeded Lord Normanby at the Colonial Office. Lord John treated it even more philosophically, for it was not for several months (March 11, 1840) that he deigned to reply, and then only after he had been reminded of the omission by the Foreign Office. In the meantime all need of further argument had been obviated by the success of Captain Hobson's mission, and so the Colonial Secretary wasted no words in rhetoric, but forwarded to his colleague a memorandum couched in concise official terms, setting out in sequence the events which in the light of International law would be used as evidence against any claim to British sovereignty, and which contained all the information it appeared necessary to afford in answer to the communication from Mr. Somes.

      It is easy to understand the indignation of the Company on learning of the Minister's repudiation of British sovereignty in New Zealand, because it sapped the very foundations of their scheme, seeing that it was illegal for British subjects to establish colonies outside the limits of the Empire without the sanction of the Crown. They had always presupposed the existence of a British sovereignty over New Zealand and upon that supposition all their calculations had been built. Now the basis of their building had gone, they adroitly pretended that what grieved them was not so much their loss as that the repudiation of British authority was a national calamity, and that what was the neglect of Britain became the opportunity of France.

      The position taken up by the Government was, however, perfectly sound, and was the only logical one they could occupy. Whether previous Governments had acted wisely and well in declining to embrace the opportunity to colonise which Cook's discovery had opened to them, may be a debatable question, but the fact at this date was that the golden opportunity had passed, and that by subsequent diplomatic acts, deliberately taken, the independence of the Maori people had been clearly and emphatically acknowledged. "The answers," wrote Lord John Russell to Lord Palmerston, "which would be made by foreign nations to such a claim as that put forward by Mr. Somes are two. First that the British Statute Book has, in the present century, in three distinct enactments, declared that New Zealand is not a part of the British Dominions, and secondly that King William IV. made the most public, solemn, and authentic declaration which it was possible to make that New Zealand was a substantive and independent state. The resolution by the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain of the fact that New Zealand is not a part of the British Dominions will be found in the Statutes 57 George III. cap. 53, 4 George IV. cap. 96, sec. 3, and 9 George IV. cap. 83, sec. 4."

      The Act of 57 George III. cap. 53 is entitled "An Act for the more effectual punishment of murders and manslaughters committed in places not within His Majesty's dominions." It sets forth – "Whereas grievous murders and manslaughters have been committed at the settlement of the Bay of Honduras in South America, etc.," "and the like offences have also been committed in the South Pacific Ocean, as well on the high seas as on land, in the Islands of New Zealand and Otaheite, and in other Islands, countries, and places not within His Majesty's dominions, by the Masters and crews of British ships, and other persons who have for the most part deserted from or left their ships, and have continued to live and reside СКАЧАТЬ