Evangelical Propaganda

Despite the novel’s interest in instructing female behaviour, it is clear that Bathurst’s primary purpose was to act as propaganda for the Church Missionary Society. Jillian Gay Spencer explains that “most of the literature about New Zealand in Britain after 1835 [was] being produced either by the New Zealand Company or by individuals affiliated with it” (19). Most guides to the country “were written or published by individuals who had an incentive (usually pecuniary) to promote emigration to New Zealand” (19). Bathurst’s author, whilst unconnected with the New Zealand Company, also wrote of New Zealand with ulterior motives. However, these motivations were not financial, but evangelical. The author recounts the history of the settlement of New Zealand through the victories and concerns of the Church Missionary Society, actively glorifying the missionary cause. While explaining “how civilization had increased in New Zealand since the year 1833” Mr Munro exclaims “what were [Charles XII] or Alexander's victories to those gained by means of this aged man [the missionary chaplain Samuel Marsden] over the kingdom of Satan, and the powers of evil?” (119, 130) He notes that in 1833 “the regular attendants on public worship numbered only a few hundreds” (120). However, this changed thanks to the leadership of men like Samuel Marsden, who received support from the CMS to bring skilled settlers to teach the Māori, as well as ‘ordinary missionaries’. These immigrants established schools, translated and disseminated the Bible, taught the Māori to read and about the advantages of the “European arts” (119). As a result, by 1838 “the attendants on public worship had increased to four thousand” (120).

The author’s information on the CMS’ activities and significant events in New Zealand history is so thorough as to suggest a close connection between herself and the Society. This is corroborated by the similarity in content and tone between Bathurstand The History of the Church Missionary Society in New Zealand, penned almost one hundred years later. In particular, both demonstrate a promotion of the work of women and style the missionaries as disinterested friends of the Māori. Written by Eugene Stock and published by the Society itself in Wellington, 1935, The History celebrates the achievements of the CMS since it first sent settlers to New Zealand in 1809. The History commends the efforts of the wives of missionaries: in particular, the wife of William Williams who set sail for New Zealand in 1825. Jane Williams is celebrated for seeking “every opportunity of influencing the Māori women” and is ranked among “those honourable women of old, who laboured with even Apostles in the Gospel” (18). A resounding success, Jane “lived to see the whole Māori people under Christian instruction, and thousands baptized” (18). The History also focuses upon missionary support of Māori interests. Stock claims that the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was “welcomed by the missionaries, for the sake of the Māoris themselves” as annexing the country was “the only way to preserve law and order in New Zealand” (28). Bathurst’s author goes one step further, claiming that “the chiefs consented to the Treaty of Waitangi, on the explanation of the missionaries, and solely in consequence of their confidence that they were their friends, and intended their good” (108-9). That Bathurstrelates exact dates and anecdotes corroborated by The History, suggests a close connection between the author and the Society. As Bathursthas received no literary criticism and is not referred to in The History, it could not have been an influence upon Stock. Therefore, their similarity most likely results from a common source. The most probable explanations are that Bathurst’s author had access to the Society’s records, was a member herself, or was closely acquainted with someone who was involved with the cause.

By recounting the successes of the CMS, Bathurst’s author certainly intended to promote the missionary cause and encourage female participation. However, this tactic also served a second purpose: as a defense of their work against Victorian society’s divided opinion. The accusations against the CMS’ mission that Bathurst’s author introduces, shine a light upon what were presumably matters of keen public debate surrounding missionary work and the colonisation of New Zealand. The author defends the CMS and its values against three primary accusations: that by striving to convert the heathen they are neglecting the religious needs of their countrymen, that a religious society should not get involved in politics by defending Māori land claims and that missionaries are hypocrites for buying land for themselves.

The CMS’ central interest is outlined by the Society at its formation in 1799: “that it is a duty highly incumbent upon every Christian to propagate the knowledge of the Gospel among the heathen” (Stock Foreword). However, this vocation was clearly controversial in 1847, as when Emily asks a “man of considerable learning”, Dr. James, and the “benevolent clergyman”, Mr Wilson, to explain the origin and objects of the CMS, she finds them opposed to it (68-9). They object to the CMS on the grounds that it serves the heathen ahead of their English countrymen and colonies which “require all the assistance we can give them, and more too” (71). To Emily’s bemusement, the men advise that the CMS “join the good old [Gospel Propagation] Society, and supply our own people first” (71). As the men change topic and begin to discuss two hospitals they support who care for patients of different diseases, Emily wonders why they do not apply the same logic to the two societies so that “the poor heathen” is not left “in degradation and misery, [with] thousands dying daily without the knowledge of that Saviour who alone can make a death-bed happy” (73).

It is through the Archdeacon Somerton, Emily’s godfather, that the author presents her strongest defence against such criticisms. The Archdeacon points out that “our Lord did not tell the Apostles to wait till all were converted at home before they went to surrounding and distant nations” (83). He claims that “the more we do for others the more blessing we may expect for ourselves” and, most pointedly, that “those individuals who are most liberal in donations to foreign objects, are generally the most liberal supporters of all works of benevolence and charity at home” (84). It is his belief that “the good people who make this objection are usually anxious to save their own pockets” (84). The defence the author feels the need to make against criticisms of the CMS posed by respected men of the establishment, suggests that her support for foreign missionary work was not a universally accepted attitude.

Bathurstdiverges even further from a socially sanctioned, female preoccupation with correct moral and religious behaviour when the author defends the CMS from accusations of political interference. Lady Mary, joining Emily and the Archdeacon’s conversation, enters a new point of criticism when demanding “what business had [the CMS] to interfere with the New Zealand Company”, claiming that “religious societies should keep to religion, and not meddle with what does not concern them” (93). Her concerns spring from the CMS’s purported interest in returning land to the Māori. As a mouthpiece for the colonial mindset, she argues that “[Māori] land is doing no good in its present uncultivated state, whereas it would be most productive and useful when managed by British industry, and improved by British capital” (95). However, the author defends the CMS’s actions through the Archdeacon, who compares Lady Mary’s desire to retain her estate, which could be more productively used by the industrial town nearby, to the Māori desire to retain their lands. Furthermore, he even quotes the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi in defence of the Māori, arguing that “the Queen guaranteed to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess” (105). Given the author’s claim that “the chiefs consented to the Treaty of Waitangi on the explanation of the missionaries”, the Archdeacon then concludes that “the honour of the missionaries [is thus] concerned in preventing the smallest infraction of the treaty”, and by extension, in protecting Māori land (109).

Although at first Lady Mary is “compelled to give a verdict in [the Archdeacon’s] favour”, in Chapter VII she returns to accuse the CMS of being “mere mercenary land-holders” on the grounds that “one missionary lay claim to 40,000, and another to 50,000 acres of New Zealand land” (109, 112). However, the author refutes claims of unscrupulous land grabbing, stating that in the first case “the natives almost insisted that it should be purchased by the missionary, and, in consequence, three once hostile tribes are now living in peace upon it” (112, 114). In the second case, the missionary “purchased the tract in question in order to enable an expelled tribe to return to what had been their homes, and nearly one hundred immediately took up their abode there” (115). In the case of smaller purchases, “the sole object of missionaries in purchasing land at all, was to make provision for their large families at a time when no other means of support were open to them but those of agriculture” (116). However, Te Ara mentions no instances of missionaries returning land on such a scale, and instead, notes that “missionaries were [...] among the earliest purchasers of land [and] early mission stations became centres of permanent European occupation and farming” [italics my own] (McLintock).

Nevertheless, contemporary accounts of colonial anger towards “missionary influence”, and even specifically towards the CMS, suggest that missionaries did support Māori land claims ahead of colonial interests. An unnamed society wrote to the Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle in 1845 that “this powerful body [the CMS] appears determined not to cease from persecution till it has accomplished [the colonists’] ruin” (“The New Zealand Colonists”). Their particular concern was that “the Church Society has encouraged [land-sharking] in their [missionaries]”. Thomas Moser, in his record of New Zealand life in 1863 titled “Mahoe Leaves”, also notes that of all the countrymen he met on his travels “every one anathematizes the missionaries” (3). They are accused of “fill[ing] the heads of the natives full of mischief”, of “complicat[ing] every Land Purchase from these natives” and of “render[ing] negotiations with these savages all but impossible” (3, 1). When questioned by Moser, a missionary does admit occasional discrepancy between missionary ideals and practice, recalling that “man is but mortal,—an erring being, and it by no means follows that missionaries are exempt from the failings of mankind” (13). However, he ultimately defends their mission and support for the Māori, who the British had, “in many cases, [...] disgracefully cheated” (12).