REV. LORIMER FISON ON TONGAN AFFAIRS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7897, 16 March 1887, Page 6

REV. LORIMER FISON ON TONGAN AFFAIRS.

.. ♦ The Rev. Lorimer Fiaon but written a latter to an Australian paper on Tongan affairs, from which we take the following:— The persecution cannofi be denied, and the question is, " Is it possible to believe that those who are active in it can have anything like Christianity left in their hearts ?" We need not stop to argue from the history of the past in the matter, though there la a very good argument to be drawn from it, unless it be denied that there was a conscientious persecutor who felt himself thoroughly justified, and sincerely thought he was doing God service. The real question here is whether King George and his chiefs look upon themselves as persecute ing on religious grounds, or whether they believe themselves to be punishing their subjects for offering unwarrantable opposition to authority which they are bound to obey. By this 1 mean opposition whioh is unwarrantable from their point of view; and, in order to understand this question, we must first be clear aa to what that point of view is. If we persist in looking at the matter from oar own standpoint, we shall never be able to understand the view whioh is taken of it by the Tongans. The argument that a Constitution was given to the people, and that it has been utterly ignored, would be valid enough if we were the parties concerned, but it has no foroe whatever to the native mind. The chiefs look upon themselves, and they are regarded by the people, as the living incarnation of the divine an* cestors, and they are above all laws and all Constitutions which oome in the way of their own will. It is hard for us nowadays to realise this, but our own forefathers would have taken it as the merest matter of course. It cannot be too strongly assorted that this is a question as to what is ia the natives' mind, not as to what is in our own; and on this point there Is no greater living authority than the Rev. William Moore, who in his address to the Conference seems to have gone to the very root of the matter as to the general question, whatever may be thought of one or two of the expressions used by him in the heat of a debate which stirred his deepest feelings. I observe that his views were warmly challenged by mv old friend and colleague, the Rev. A. J. Webb; and, as 1 should not like to put my judgment as to the respective merits of these two contending opinions in such a way as to be at all annoying to my friend, 1 will say that of all our missionaries no one came to understand the native mind better than Mr. Moore, that he knows more of it than I know, and that Mr. Webb will be the first to allow that my knowledge is equal to his own. But, as to this question, I can advance something more weighty than my own opinion—more weighty than even that of Mr. Moore himself. I have in my possession a letter from a native minister of the Free Church, a man who . did long and excellent service with us in Fiji, and who was deservedly held in high esteem by us all. It seta forth very clearly the view taken by King George and the ohiefs, and, moreover, it shows that their view is accepted as just and right by their adherents —in other words by the vast majority of the Tongan nation. Briefly summarised it is as follows—King George is our chief, and we are bound to obey all his lawful commands. He expressed his will that we should join the Free Chnroh of Tonga. Was that command lawful, or unlawful ? If he had told us to go to the Church of Rome, or in any other way to abandon Methodism, we should have been justified in refusing, and we would have taken the consequences of our refusal. Bat he did not do this. The Free Church is a Methodist Church. We have the same Bible we had before, the same doctrines, the same discipline, the same worship, the same God and Saviour Jesus Christ our Lord. The only difference is that we are independent of outside rule. Therefore, the King's oommand was a lawful command, and to disobey it is an actof rebellion. And who are they who have disobeyed ? Are they ohiefs such as are qualified to disobey. Some of them, perhaps, are chiefs, but they are not of rank sufficient to aive them an hereditary right to dispute the King's will. Therefore, they are rebels. "You ask why men are punished because of their religion? If any man in Tonga has been so punished I do not know who he is. They have been punished, and many more things will be done to them; but it is not because of their religion ; it is because of their rebellion." These last are the man's own words. I do not give this as an argument which has any force from our own standpoint. It would be easy enough to frame an answer to it whioh would be incontrovertible to our own minds. But I say most positively that the argument appears unanswerable to the native mind, and that it shows how King George and his ohiefs oan be quite unconscious that they are persecuting their subjects for their religious convictions. Like Mr. Moors, I never said Amen to the extravagant laudations of Tongan Christianity whioh we used to hear, though I thankfully acknowledge that there was a real and thorough work of grace among the people; and, now that some of the very men who formerly were loudest in their hallelujahs are denying the Christianity of almost an entire nation I maintain that, in spite of all that has occurred, the Free Church people may yet be good Christians according to the light they have. I put this to a fine old gentleman the other day, and I thought for the moment that he was going to hit me; but he didn't. All lean say is," he cried, in a white heat, "I couldn't be a Christian and do what those fellows are doing." "No," I replied, "you oould not, but a Tongan oould." And I had the grace to refrain from adding—what I was strongly tempted to add, and what is perfectly true that if that fine old gentleman himself had been a Roman Catholio in the days of Qaeen Mary, he would have been an excellent Christian, and yet he would have snuffed up whiffs of roasting Protestants aB the savour of an acceptable sacrifice. I do not agree with Mr. Moore that the question with our suffering people is not a question of a conscience, nor do I think that he meant all that his bare words imply. It is a case of conscience with our people. They think it right to hold to Mr. Moulton, and, therefore, in their view they are Buffering for righteousness' sake. But none the less is Mr. Moore right in the main. At the bottom of it, it is a question of party ; but it has grown into a question of conscience. 1 am not concerned to defend Messrs. Baker and Watkin, nor am I disposed to defend them; but I doubt very much the assertion which is so frequently made that the former is the real mover in the persecution. There are many who regard him, and I observe in your report of the debate that the Rev. William Clarke spoke of King George as a mere tool in Mr. Baker's hands. All I can say on this point is the King is about the last man in the world to be a tool in anybody's hands. From the very beginning of his career he has uniformly shown himself to be a most able, strong willed, arbitrary ohief, stern and implacable to all who persisted in setting themselves against his will, but gracious to those who submitted, even though they stood out to the last against him. "He has won us twice," said old Joel Bulu, who had fought against him in his youth. "Once by the strength of his arm, then again by his graciousness to us, {rod now we are his for ever." Mr. Baker's success is owing to the fact that he has been keen enough to perceive what it was possible to do with the King, and that he had tact enough to do it; but that he could prevent him from carrying out his stern policy I do not for a moment believe. Whether he has done well in abetting him in it is quite another question, and it is one for Mr. Baker's own conscience, of which no one of us is the arbiter. Finally, let me say that, while we reprobate the persecution, we should not allow ourselves to be so carried away by our feelings aa to call that persecution whioh is nothing more than the enforcement of a law which we ourselves have to oboy. Thus the report makes a great deal of the fines, &c., indicted on our people for not keeping our lands in order. But the fact is that the "hoeing and weeding" is the analogue of our own rates and taxes whioh property-holders among us have to pay. If we did not pay those charges we should not be excused on the ground of our impeouniosity, and if we were imprisoned for non-payment the charges would not cease to accrue during our incarceration. In fact, our lands would be put up to auction, and sold to the highest bidder. So in Tonga, if we persist in holding to our lands we must either fulfil the conditions of the holding, or take the consequences. In the very beginning of these troubles some of us advocated the handing over of those lands to the Government, and it seems likely that we shall be forced to this sooner or later. We might have done it with a good

grace then. Bat it is no use talking about what might have been. In God'a name, and for Christ's sake, let as try whether something cannot be done to pat an end to the present unhappy state of things. I believe that even now, if the suggestion of the New Zealand Conference be carried out in a thoroughly conciliatory spirit peace may be seoured. I would even say, '"Make the whole affair over to the New Zealand brethren, and let them try what they can do." What matter who is beaten as long as Christ wins ? ■