Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Historical Records of New Zealand South

New Zealand Colonisation Scheme.—Mr Polack, Etc. — From The Times (London), April 5, 1839

New Zealand Colonisation Scheme.—Mr Polack, Etc.
From The Times (London), April 5, 1839.

Considering the eager avarice and extensive machinations of the New Zealand Associationists, it would be marvellous indeed if they could not command the usual Old Bailey exculpation by suborning the customary number of witnesses to swear them a decent character. Not that the whole of their members are all alike implicated in the fabrication of such evidence; by no means. We are quite sure that Sir George Sinclair and Mr Francis Baring, who have unaccountably got themselves mixed up with the venture, would heartily despise anything of the kind. But the more selfish and bustling managers of the case are men of a different kidney. For the most part they are the victims of desperate fortunes or of a distempered optimism; in other words, a motley confederation of embarrassed speculators and credulous dupes, who, being united under a specious but unreal harmony of purpose, are prosecuting by common concert incompatible objects, according as their vice or virtues incline them. Here, as in most plots of a similar kind, the evil influence predominates. In proportion as the upright are lulled into an inert confidence, their artful deceivers are mischievously active, and accordingly the exculpatory evidence adduced before the Peers' Committee exhibits ample proof of the skill and industry employed getting it up. We appeal to the record itself. One of the most prominent witnesses in favour of the scheme is a Mr Joel Samuel Polack, a worthy and wandering offshoot of the seed of Abraham. The said Joel, a retailer of ardent spirits to the sailors and fugitives in New Zealand, having sworn that he has not kept a "grog shop," covers his loaded stomach with the following unpaid-for depositions:— "Resided six years in New Zealand. Understands the language, but, though conversing often with the natives, learned from Europeans that colonisation would be liked much by the New Zealanders. The introduction of more Europeans would be looked upon by them as a mode of introducing quiet into the country. Bought five pieces of land from them. When negotiating the purchase they said, 'You are going to steal our land from us!' Native population in New Zealand has decreased. Swears that the principal cause is infanticide, and yet also swears that the 'principal cause' of the decrease was the wars on the first introduction of firearms! Wars have increased since Europeans have been there, but not through Europeans. Cannot account for the wars having increased. It is supposed that the Europeans have caused it." There is, however, one thread of truth in honest Joel's web. "Ladies," he says, "do not like celibacy in New Zealand." This, we think, may be reasonably true; but, whether or not, we are scandalised to find, according to another respectable page 33deponent, that so crack a witness in favour of colonisation is not to be 'believed, "under any circumstances, even upon his oath." We therefore feel released from disturbing this worthy Israelite's testimony; only we must add that the New Zealand Associationists seem to have had no great bargain of him. The fact is, that in his anxiety to earn their protection of his land purchases, he has literally destroyed them with over-feeding; though, as far as he himself is concerned, his character, we have no doubt, is just as good as ever it was. But there are other exculpatory witnesses of much higher consideration; and if we are constrained to hold their testimony quite as cheap as Joel's, it is not because we question their veracity, but because we distrust their judgment. Here, however, we must make a decided exception on behalf of J. Z. Nicholas, Esq., who, although favourable to the formal establishment of a colony, on account of the irregular and lawless way in which New Zealand is now being colonised by stealthy adventurers, declares that the natives "who would not object to sell their land would still object to having the government transferred from their chiefs" into their hands; which is just tantamount to saying that, as far as New Zealand is concerned, the interference of the association, if not of Downing street itself, ought to be resolutely cashiered. There are, however, divers deponents by whom the plans of the association are more tenderly dealt with. For example, Mr John Platt, who, happening to be no longer employed by the Church Missionary Society, and expressing his willingness to undertake another engagement to New Zealand, if Providence were presenting one (have the association no snag appointment that might suit?), endeavours to give that latter body an important lift by doing what he can to disparage the labours of his other colleagues, the missionaries, by whom the association has been so successfully opposed and forestalled as to have induced the Peers' Committee to report that their "exertions" are entitled to the "support of her Majesty's Government," as pre-eminently "beneficial to the rapid advancement of the religious and social condition of the aborigines." Mr John Flatt is somewhat sharp upon this head. Acknowledging, as he is constrained to do, that "the labours of the missionaries have upon the whole been successful," he nevertheless gives a hitch to the association as follows:— "The chiefs are anxious to sell their land. It might not be proper to reserve certain districts for the natives, unless they would cultivate those reserves; but they are not in the habit of cultivating more than is absolutely necessary. Secular things press so heavily upon the missionaries on behalf of their children that their labours have not had all the effect which they might otherwise produce. At present they are cultivating their land. To use the words of the Rev. Henry Williams, they are just holding on for their children, seeing that they have no other prospects. The missionaries who purchase land are only those having large families. The native children do not receive much at present of Christian doctrines. The instruction devolves almost wholly upon the wives of the missionaries, and having their domestic duties and their own families to attend to, they do not give much time to it."

Take that, ye self-denying and calumniated, messengers of peace! And be all the more thankful that it comes from your ancient fellow-labourer and friend, Mr John Flatt! It is, however, a solace to these inestimable men that nearly all the other witnesses bear an honourable testimony to their indefatigableness and successful labours; while, with respect to the Wesleyan Missionaries, it is declared by one gentleman who had ample opportunities of knowing the religious attachment of the natives under their care, that "he saw the greatest display of Christian feeling that could be imagined among such people," and beheld "five hundred of them assembled at public worship particularly attentive and decorous." But Mr John Flatt, having gratified the association by a blow at the church missionaries, prosecutes his lawful calling as follows:— "If emigrants of respectability and pious persons could be induced to go there (if there is an opening), their labours would be as productive of good as the missionaries." "Does not think that the emigrants need be page 34confined to respectable people alone, for if the majority were respectable it might have a good influence upon the remainder and keep them within the bounds of moderation. If any number of persons going out were accompanied by some system and regulation of law (exactly, John, what the association professes to provide), I believe that the New Zealanders would receive them with open arms." So much for this worthy servant of all work, who, happening to be out of a place just now, is manifestly a candidate for employment with the usual willingness to make himself "generally useful." The association, doubtless, will not lose sight of this, especially as John has a thirty years' written character, which was produced for the edification of the Peers' Committee, and understands, moreover, "the management of a farm." Judging, however, by the tenor of their Lordships' report on the missionaries and in favour of missionary labour in New Zealand, it would appear that the association has not taken much change out of John's evidence, and therefore without subjecting him to a cross-examination we proceed to another witness. The Rev. Samuel Hinds, D.D., a clergyman of the Established Church, who has no personal knowledge or experience of the New Zealanders, or experimental knowledge in any shape or form, is called in, and deposes as follows:—

"He is a committee member of 'The Association,' is favourable to colonising, because numbers of respectable and provident persons, putting confidence in our publications, would emigrate immediately, especially from Scotland; and this feeling amounts to a claim upon the British Parliament to expose the unsoundness of those publications: no, but to improve their circumstances, which require some change for the better." Here the learned doctor distinctly admits that what he strenuously advocates is mainly a monetary consideration for bettering other people's circumstances, and in order that there may be no mistake touching the extent to which the graspings of avarice are to be facilitated and practised by the associationists he declares, as an additional reason for embarking in his favourite enterprise, that "capitalists can hardly employ their capital so as to sufficiently remunerate them by an investment in this country." It would therefore appear, according to this heavenly-minded gentleman, that neither railways, nor canals, nor insurance offices, nor waterworks, nor gas companies, nor house property, nor land purchases, nor East India bonds, nor bank stock, nor any form of known investment, nor any amount of realisable profit in this country can satisfy the ravenous pecuniary cravings of the class for whose benefit Dr Hinds's association is constituted. What sort of a quid pro quo the poor New Zealanders are likely to get by this sordid and rapacious adventure we need not stay to conjecture. But, as the doctor tells us (contradicted by the Rev. Mr Wilkinson, who had been upon the spot) that "the natives have little or no chance of civilisation at the present," we infer that the great equivalent that they are to receive for being swindled out of their territory and deprived of their sovereign rights is that species of civilisation as an exemplary encouragement to which Dr Hinds put forth the following novel principles of Christian morality:— "Lord Durham's million of acres (which, according to Mr E. Baring, were purchased for £40 or £50) are to be transferred to the association, and are considered to have been fairly purchased. As regards future transactions, we propose that a purchase should be made of the Sovereignty as well as of the fee-simple of the land." Of course, they will be conducted on the same scale of upright bargaining and fairness of equivalent which the doctor had previously honoured with his high moral sanction. But hear how he proceeds: "The only principle which it is important to maintain is this— 'If you go into a country inhabited by savages, and take possession of their land and become sovereigns of it, you infringe their rights.' (By what, good Doctor? Not by the act of plunder itself) if you do not consider their benefit as well as your own. If you were treating a child (to take possession of his land, observe, for that is the point in question) you would not infringe the rights of the child simply by acting and deciding for him; but you would infringe his rights if you acted and decided for your benefit and not his. So page 35with respect to savages." Let the country take this as a specimen of what the New Zealand Association really is. A highwayman has only to declare that he takes possession of your purse for your own benefit as well as his, and if he leave you a sovereign or two your rights are not infringed. This is the homily of Dr Hinds.

Sailed for New Zealand, Samuel Winter; Robertson, master. Passengers: Rev. Mr and Mrs Mason, Mr and Mrs Palmer, Messrs Murray, Cormac, Weavil, Ballingal, Brodie, and Foster; and 17 in the steerage.—Sydney Customs records, October 22, 1839.

[This appears to be the first indication of settlement immigration to New Zealand.]