HISTORY OF CANTERBURY

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28448, 30 November 1957, Page 3

HISTORY OF CANTERBURY

gigtffrv of Canterbury. General J marten*- Janies Hight, r M.G.. M.A.. Litt.D., J.L.D.; SB. Straubel, M.A. Vdnnu' To 1854: Canterbury (NghLfluial Association. Whiiand Tombs Lt£f 3(\ [Retnewed by A.R.) . the old goose had wit to know how to manage TXction. .■ • He promised jetting; a bit of the moon to Looter, a planet or so to anr; hcr but moonshine is always a Lnje commodity at an election. Sap land,’ ‘cheap bread.’ ‘No Xjnese labour.’ ‘No Association,’ S pretty good election cries. A jgjfj of music and a procession J? children carrying some red Lj blue shirts for banners could Lpily fail to produce an effect JTthe free and independent elects of Christchurch.” This quotation has nothing to

fcwith modern elections. It is t 3 of several striking passages rich help to bring the past to in the first volume of the fdal centennial History of Cansfrny. Quoted by Professor L. C. Webb from the manuscript journal of Henry Sewell, it derribes the political campaigning / Colonei James Campbell in the rit election for Superintendent * the Canterbury Province, an Section which took place in larch. 1853. Elections may come and go. Prime Ministers may .resign, and rvemments may sometimes range, but one thing remains altered—the past. History, in tie sense of what has happened : the past, cannot be changed, ■story, in the sense of what is ritten about the past, can be teed in accordance with the race material available for conation and with the interpretatin placed upon that material by be historian. The centenary of tie founding of Canterbury could Mt be allowed to pass without be publication of a provincial listory to mark the occasion. A comparison of this jfirst volume of the Canterbury Centennial AseocatMm’s undertaking with the ruch dimmer work, “Canterbury Old and Hew. 1850-1900,” published for ffie Christchurch branch of the New Zealand Natives’ Astodatfon by Whitcombe and Tombs in 1900, reveals what tremendous progress has been made in the writing of history. Where- & in 1900, the editors were satisfed with securing short, chatty rtdes, giving the personal impesskms and reminiscences of Graving pioneers, in 1957, the Eton have been seriously consned with producing a genuine- ’ scholarly history which is at ace reliable and readable. Posa omparison of such disatihr works is unfair to the slier publication, but at least it sows what giant strides have 'seen ade in historiography in Gristchurch. Ibe Preface to this volume of "A History of Canterbury” expublication of some '-rif history was originally proWed for he New Zealand nafrMl centennial of 1940. AlWi some chapters were prey’d in detail for that project. ® war and other circumstances Evened. nd the work was laid until the approach of the Uncial centennial. The moveof certain writers to Tasand to Canberra meant the plan taken up in 1949 prevised more than once beit was finally decided to pubthe first of three volumes in Berber. 1957. If the period of station for this first volume has long, readers may be asthat the result has been U worth waiting for. The HisCommittee, the editors. 2d the writers have realised that task was to produce the best gable history, and that it was to wait and be satisfied *tJ.the final product than to prematurely and be disfor ever. A centennial Jr 01 ? appears once and once and it is a matter of congelation to the editors and all

that this first volume up to the very highest which could be set for histories. To date, the u 5l Provincial history to appear Zealand has certainly H. McLintock’s Hisoffei 1° p plte of its lack its aDce i n certain directions, of the last 40 teip 80 of Otago’S life in a and some serious S ' tllis ota S° centennial tngT* a new standard for i- of provincial histories th® r countr y. Whether or not C historians have riyjjnspired by interprovincial t-,- e “ some other competi- < ®Pbition, is beside the point, ‘ie .JJ’totoly bid fair tf> produce if history of this e other two volumes of Canterbury” mealy to the high standard set “ r st volume, few fair- . people will care to argue ! ’?bv superior merits Yokm? t r Provincial history. Cj o ® lof the Canterbury censtory to divided into ons - each by a differ-’ While the policy of wb °le history written has much to comij Atoost notably in the tracof long-term * n av oidance of o °f contradictory philviewpoints, the syshere enables varito speak with genjqffj®rity on the periods or know best. Thus. SecLand of Canterbury” ■ G- Jobberns, Pro-

University e cSege y . & PI p eXx r ' svafeWs KvSSS present. Di vidin ptL P 1 • the imo the plain thf u h t P rovi nce the downUnds and ft.£° U ?> try- “■ b ; efly a ß tS^eo C u n t--TreV a® d th a » raCteriStics oI each thZ? K 1 • manner in which and tynF o i nf J uenaed settlement a type of farming. The nnlv “V? P thV n ‘ that „ can be mad™’', TnhK'' space allotted to Professor Jobberns was too limited but as an ‘aiYhkt^"; 0 what is ' after e b an h I “ t ?" ca l 1 work, it is first U Incidentally, while there bulk of’ S ?h tlng fact ,hat ‘ h e vi~o £ th weal ‘h of the proareas Vr if ome the rara| ’ • x s worth noting that of c7nS PGr '. Cent of the People or Canterbury now live and Xmrch m metro P°l ita n ChristC’ J- Straubel has written which vr* 1 , sec £i on i eight chapters which deal with “Maori and European to 1350.” Mr Straubel has been most painstaking and careful in his researches. He has left practically no stone unturned 1“ ,2 ls endeav our to reach the concerning a period for which the source of material is often distressingly inadequate, inis is particularly true of early Maori history but both here and m the almost equally difficult period of whalers and early visitSi s J? Canterbury shores, Mr Straubel has combined something of a genius for solving historical problems with an admirable fac-

ility in presenting the results of his delving as if there had been nn problems at all. Comparison of Appendix I and the main text not only shows why Mr Straubel rejected the generally accepted date of March, 1835, for Captain George Hempieman’s establishment of a whaling station a Peraki in favour of a date two years later, but also illustrates how thorough-going have been Mr Straubel’s researches. Occasionally, Mr Straubel appears too anxious to pass on details of information to his readers with the result that some pages contain catalogues of facts which might possibly have been summarised. Eut controversies over the details of pre-1850 Canterbury history can be still only when the full details are presented as they have been here.

Probably the most important chapter of this section deals with “The French at Akaroa.” This is ♦he most scholarly account of that incident in both Canterbury and

New Zealand history that has so far been written. Although some critics may query the wisdom of devoting so much space to this subject when, to quote Mr Straubel, “Because of the late departure of the ships, the French expedition was doomed to failure from the outset,” the incident was so important at the time and has bulked so largely in several histories that it was high time that the topic was thoroughly explored. Although Mr Charles Craw, who has been representing New Zealand at the United Nations during the last month, wrote his M.A. thesis on this subject, he did not have access to some of the French documents Mr Straubel has used to good effect. Serious and informed scholars will applaud most heartily Mr Straubel’s refusal to accept certain myths concerning the so-called race for Akaroa. With careful documentation, Mr Straubel explains the attitude and the movements of the French men, the proclamations of British sovereignty over the whole of _the South Island by Governor Hobson some weeks before the arrival of the French ships, and the reasons for Hobson’s decision to send the “Britomart” to Akaroa with two magistrates British sovereignty had been effectively asserted before the Nant p-B°^ e ’’ aise expedition arrived but Hobson considered it wise both to reinforce the proclamation and to make the position P to the French, and consequently to influence the reports which would be sent to the French Government. The ship “Aube” remained at anchor in the Bay of Islands for four full days after the “Britomart sailed and in various ways the •Commissaire du Roi Captain La - aud, showed that he want to contest the assertion of Bn tish policy. With regard to the situation in the B a y of Istands and the actions of Hobson ana Svaud Mr Straqbel writes -fit is necessarv to write off as “'‘'O') the popular legend that at a ball given in Lavaud s honour at the Bav of Islands on the night of Jul., he or one of hu; office•let slip’ the news that tne FrC z n e Ch Ak C a r r P oa On an h d elr th W arH O ob C S °o i ; S r ‘H W MS S B“ e art also gives an interesting account of the arrival and activities of the fi r s t settlers most of whom appear to have Srthn. the ers, their workers. J. r ana S Manson. Ehenezer Hay. Cap tain F. Sinclair, and the Green wood brothers. , Hi . s h acc „ao r i titi» extinguishing of the Maori titi to the lands other than the spef la reserves is takeni up to 19M when the Neai-tahu Trust Board naa Its powers defined in l egl j la J‘ o ”' In discussing the site P on . for the official Canterbury Ass elation settlement and the p P. ations made for the the

dS much ? h ‘ PS ' Mr Straubel nm. n t 0 reb abilitate the wh? was I 1” , Jose Ph Thomas chief eH , ect ’ the agent and yOr . for the association, and th ia S ° f Strau ber s style Clusinn . 5 ° f hiS “ ain OOnwork nr r? h . ,s discussion of the aathnrna Captain Thomas may be of Sitton I?“ the Closing pages t« h n ? M lor their arrival fell short of the bS?v Cta settiA ° f of the Cantercomrt £u lers - ° n neither count could -Thomas be held to tolane m OV S er d l fficu . lt he m ay have been in personal relationships, his overSeem . S to have been the hfo P os . slble ,n the circumstances oi n?tnri ns tr y ctl ° ns - .of the physical Slte - and o£ the limitations of finance . . . only one ril^r natlVe . site—the Bluff—was really available to Thomas. The S l3O ! 1 J* I*!® 1 *!® bad n °t been extinguished in the Manawatu, the Waikato, the Wairarapa, or at Ahunri. • • • .The Bluff . . . offered only an inferior harbour on a much more stormy cqast, with the further disadvantage of isolation and a much colder climate. . . .

. £n the essential matter of surveys the work of preparation—in spite of the six months’ interregnum from April, 1850—was adequate. In Canterbury almost alone of the Wakefield settlements was it found possible very quickly after their landing to put the whole body of the land-purchasers into possession of their land. In fact the Canterbury Association’s settlers —in this respect resembling those who nearly three years before them landed at Dunedin—came to a site that had been better prepared in the matter of surveys, accommodation for immigrants, and landing facilities than any of the northern Wakefield settlements. All this they owed to Captain Thomas and his assistants

Mr Straubel’s achievement in producing what will long remain the definitive history of presettlement Canterbury is a considerable one. His scholarly search for the truth will, on many questions, supply the information sought by those interested in that period of the province’s history.. The third and, from the point of view of the subsequent history of the province, the most important section of this book has been entrusted to Leicester C. Webb, formerly a leader writer for “The Press’’ and now Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University, Canberra. Entitled “The Canterbury Association and its Settlement,’’ it deals with the origins, foundation and early formative years of Canterbury. It takes the story of the Canterbury Association to the end of that body, and makes some assessment of its ’achievements. Less concerned about problems of dates and details than Mr Straubel. Professor Webb writes with confidence and gusto. As is to be expected from the political scientist, he is particularly interested in political theories and ideas. On these he writes with stimulating conviction and with shrewd analysis of the various factors relating to the origins of the Canterbury Association and province. He wisely refers the more important theories to the men who formulated or advanced them. Thus his opening chapter centres attention on John Robert Godley, whose “political convictions proceeded from and were subordinated to his religious convictions,’’ and on Edward Gibbon Wakefield, the ’originator of a theory of systematic colonisation which had at its core the doctrine of the “fixed, uniform, and sufficient . price’’ for land. Godley and Wakefield were drawn together by -similar views on the practicability of organising a Church of England settlement in New Zealand. To his theories designed to secure a good vertical section of English society as colonists and to produce automatically a proper balance of land, labdur and capital in the new colony, Wakefield, could add his experience with the New Zealand Company and its earlier settlements. Godley, “a young Tory squire, deeply religious, and. by virtue, of his education and social origins, on nodding terms with most of the great figures in church and State,’’ was able to appeal for support to a number of influential people. The “Association for founding the Settlement of Canterbury” first met in London on March 27, 1848. Its first membership list sets it apart from all other such organisations and indicates the acceptance of responsibilities in a new field by upper class leaders in church and politics. This list contained two archbishops, seven bishops, 14 peers, four baronets, and 16 members of Parliament. The association’s object was “to set an example of a colonial settlement in which, from the first, all the elements, including the very highest, of a good and right

state of society, shall find their proper place, and their active operation.” Professor Webb deals with the planning, the problems the setbacks and the success of the Canterbury Association in most impressive fashion. He draws together a variety of themes—Colonial Office attitudes, the riddle of Governor Sir George Grey s policy the working out and altering of a land purchase and distribution policy, - the earlyapparent neglect of the ment’s religious and educational needs, and the unfortunate choice of the first bishop designate--in a manner which is at once comprehensive and authoritative. Perhaps, from the point of view of those interested m the rank and file of “the people" and social 'history generally, he is too concerned with tracing the way in which the theories and ideas of the leaders worked out in nracticel But his concentration on P the leaders and comparative

neglect of the “emigrants” (the assisted passengers who were labourers and artisans as distinct from the “colonists,” the land purchasers) does not lead to any overlooking of the important economic factors which so largely determined the course of Canterl ury history, social and political. Thus, although Professor Webb holds that up to 1851, “the Canterbury Settlement may be regarded as the most successful application of the principles of systematic colonisation,” he goes on to show- that the terrain was peculiarly adapted to the pasturing of sheep and cattle, that the Australian squatters showed that extensive pastoralism had real advantages in small capital outlay and quick returns, and that even Godley on the spot was forced to circumvent the law in order to grant cheap pasturage terms. By cheapening, pasturage, Godley released economic forces which, m the space of little more than a year, transformed the Canterbury Settlement. . . . Cheap pasturage, Australian squatters, and Merino flocks changed the whole prospect. r i he tide of pastoral occupation surged forward across the plains and even into the foothills of the main divide. By the end of 1852 all of the plains and most of the low hills north of the Raxaia had been applied for by pastoralists. . . Although Wakefield attacked Godley for giving over the Canterbury Settlement to “squatting and barbarism,” the truth is that extensive pastoralism rescued the gentry among the Pilgrims—the younger sons and the university men—from economic extinction. As Godley hao seen . . investment of capital in large agricultural estates must be a losing venture: the limited market supplied by small holders who employed no labour. Moreover, not many of the young men with capital had the experience necessary for the arduous and uncertain business of raising crops on a strange soil. The life of the sheep station might be hard, but it was an escape from the drudgery of tillage, and the technique could be learned in a few months, even by the city-bred. FitzGerald, whose knowledge of life had been gained in the University of Cambridge and the British Museum, was making a living from his run within three years of his arrival in Canterbury, and during this period was at different times editor of the

“Lyttelton Times” and Superintendent of Canterbury. In the eighteensixties. Samuel Butler, an even more unlikely farmer, made enough from his run in the Rangitata valley to support him for the rest of his life, and yet found leisure enough to write the first draft of Erewhon for the Christchurch “Press.” For- the young man with moderate capital, the Canterbury Settlement in its first few years presented opportunities unsurpassed in the whole history of British colonisation

No review can adequately cover the content of a major historical work such as this volume of Canterbury history. But this wellwritten book is something more. It is a notable contribution to New Zealand history, not least in the field of colonial political economy.' Professor Webb’s assessment of the practicability of Whkefield’s theory *of colonisation . and his equally sound analysis of that theory’s application in Canterbury go further. They add to our comprehension of a segment of British colonial history and are bound to attract study and commendation outside this country. The 42 illustrations, all reproductions of contemporary sketches, paintings, f plans and maps, add appreciably to the interest and value of the book. The bibliography is excellent and the index more than adequate. So well satisfied will most readers be that they will join the present reviewer in claiming that the editors have been too- modest. This work is something more than is suggested by the title “A History of Canterbury.” If the other two volumes live up to the promise of this first volume, the title should be “The History of Canterbury.” THEATRE The Other Dear Charmer. A. Comedy in Three Acts by Robert Kemp. Gerald Duckworth. 106 pp.

“The Other Dear Charmer” is a sprightly comedy of misunderstandings drawn from the famous exchange of letters between Robert Burns and Mrs Nancie MacLehose, under the names of Sylvander and Clarinda. It Is impossible not to be amused, and touched by Mrs MacLehose’s woeful failure to understand the true nature of the poet. Mr Kemp insists that she is the centre of interest in his play, and he has certainly created a charming figure; she has the fragility and the comparative uselessness of the fine china cups and saucers, painted with birds of paradise, of which she is so proud. Himself a Scotsman, Mr Kemp is fond of birds. Inevitably, however, it is Mr Kemp’s portrayal of Burns that remains in the memory. The poet’s openness and simplicity are made most convincing; and this is valuable in an age when the fashionable close reading of his poetry tends to see more sophistication of thought and feeling than was ever written into it. Mr Kemp introduces his play with a , preface. He is fond of Burns, but treats him at times with a sort of rough and ready familiarity which would have given Dr. Johnson a wonderful opportunity to speculate about what passes for delicacy among the inhabitants of NtStth Britain