CENTURY AGO

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 41, 27 November 1937, Page 11

CENTURY AGO

SETTLEMENT OF NEW ZEALAND. A CONTROVERSY RECALLED. Another of the Centennial anniversaries leading up in 1940 to the Centennial of New Zealand’s colonisation and cession to the British Crown falls this month. Early in the year 1837, the New Zealand Association had been formed to settle New Zealand according to the Wakefield system of colonisation Within a short time Government support had been secured for the proposal and the Association was able to announce the formation of a> group of in tending colonists who were realy to set out for New Zealand immediately the necessary authority was given. By the death of William IV., and the ensuing Parliamentary recess, the Association had met with a. temporary reverse. But in October, 1837, Edward Gibbon Wakefield was writing confidently, indeed exuberantly, of the Association’s pros pects. A month later, however, a challenge was issued to Wakefield and tho Association by the appearance of s pamphlet with the title “The Principles, Objects, and Plan oi the New Zealand Association Examined in a Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies.” The author of this pamphlet, dated November 27, 1837, was Dande son Coates, Lay Secretary of the Church Missionary Society. Dandeson Coates. So there enters the troubled scene of early New Zealand history a personality quite as impressive, and, in his own sphere, as powerful as Edward Gibbon Wakefield. Coates was a man of inexhaustible zeal, a superbly efficient organiser and, by temperament, an autocrat. “Most men of that day,” wrote a contemporary, “will remember his tall, thin figure, his green shade, his quiet manner, untiring industry and firm but somewhat narrow mind.” In his office as Lay Secretary of the Church Missionary Society he virtually controlled that organisation which, formed at the close of the eighteenth century by a group of Evangelicals, now numbered its converts in the remotest corners of the earth. But the influence of Dandeson Coates extended beyond the councils of the Church Missionary Society into the House of Commons and Departments of State. This was more especially true of the Colonial Office where Coates was on intimate terms with Lord Glen elg, the Secretary of State, and with the Permanent Under-Secretary, James Stephen. It was this powerful triumvirate, Coates, Stephen and Glenelg, with their supporters who resolutely opposed the plans of the Association and delayed, though they could not prevent, the colonisation of New Zea land. The Case Against Colonisation. And what were the reasons for an opposition which was to he maintained even after the Colony’s foundation? The case was presented by Coates with a narrow intensity that accords weH with the pen-portrait of him given above. “My Lord,” he opens the letter, “The colonisation of uncivilised countries, by Europeans in modern times, presents one of the darkest pic- 1 tures of that dark subject—history. Everywhere the aboriginal tribes have been despoiled of their lands, demoralised, thinned in their numbers, and in som6 instances, exterminated by colonisation.” One could scarcely hope to find a passage in more extreme contrast with the glowing pages of Wakefield. Yet it was not the statement of an irresponsible fanatic; it was supported only too well by the famous report of the Aborigines Committee of 1836. Coates proceeds in similar strain, occasionally varying his pessimism with a touch of derision. Item by item, Wakefield’s proposals are examined and condemned. Brushing aside the Association’s assurances of goodwill toward the natives, he openly declares, ‘‘Gain is, in fact, the mainspring and ultimate end of the whole scheme. Woe to the poor New Zealanders under such a regime 1” As a contrast to this dark prophecy Coates now gives an account of the achievements of the Mission since its establishment in 1814, citing a recent letter from the venerable Marsden himself: “I was much pleased to find that, wherever I went, I found some that could read and write. They are all fond of reading; and there are many who have never 1 had an opportunity to attend the schools, can read. The prospect of success to the Mission is very great.” Under the encouragement and influence of the missionaries he points out further great progress has been made with native industry and agriculture. Finally he makes an eloquent plea, far the continuance of this work: “Only let New Zealand be spared from colonisation, and the Mission have its free and unrestricted course for one half century more, and the great political and moral problem will be solved—of a people passing from a barbarous to a civilised state, through the agency of Europeans, with the complete preservation of the aboriginal race, and oi their national independence and sovereignty.” „ A Conflict of Ideas. The publication of this letter following close on the appearance of Wakefield’s “British Colonisation of New Zealand” opened a. bitter pamphlet war which was to drag on for years. Superficially the controversy may be regarded as the result of a clash between two dominant figures, Coates and Wakefield. It was in reality a more fundamental struggle between conflicting forces and ideas. Dandeson Coates represented a school of thought which for two reasons was opposed to colonisation. In the first place, as we have seen, it considered that European settlement was inevitably detrimental to the native people of a colony, and quite as inevitably interfered with the work of missionaries. Secondly it regarded colonies as costly encumbrances which, like the American Colonies, might be expected to claim

independence as soon as they approached maturity.

Opposed to this point of view was the group which found its ablest exponent in Edward Gibbon Wakefield. Those men, impelled by economic forces, felt the dire need for colonial expansion if Britain were not to succumb to its surplus of population and capital. Furthermore they considered that a solution could be found to the prbblems raised by their adversaries; colonisation could be so organised that native rights would be safeguarded while at the same time self-government could be granted to colonies without the danger of their eventually claiming independence. Such was the controversy exercising colonising theorists in 1837. Remote as it may seem to us at a century’s, distance, yet it had an important part in determining the character and future destinies of the new colony. Certain echoes of the controversy, indeed, resound throughout New’ Zealand history and are audible to us to-day.