NEW ZEALAND'S ANCIENT HISTORY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13859, 23 March 1907, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND'S ANCIENT HISTORY.

HOW NEW ZEALAND ESCAPED •FRENCH OWNERSHIP. UTHOII Om Oto Oojbisjohdbnt.) i LONDON, February 8. Sonic time ago I sent. you a fairiy full account ol tho controversy which* had arisen over tho question—raised by Mr Stuart R-c.d's then-recently-published "Life of Lord Durham"—of New Zealand's escape from becoming a French convict settlement, ami her establishment as a British possession. A letter signed "Albert J. Aliom," and dated from I'arncll, Auckland, New Zealand, has just appeared in tho Morning Post criticising the statements made regarding the events of New Zealand's earliest history as associated with Britain Two statements arc at, the outset assailed hy Mi' Allom: (1) Tho assertion that " New Zealand owes it to Lord 1 Durham lhat she is a British colony," and (2) the allegation tlmt. it was "Lord Durham's energy in despatching the ship Tory from Plymouth to Port Nicholson" that eccured the advantage. Mr Allom asserts that in each case " for Lord Durham wc must read Edward Gibbon Wakefield." "As a matter of fact," says Mr Allom, "the Tory did not sail direct from Plymouth to Port Nicholson. She arrived at Queen Charlotte's Sound, not Port Nicholson, as stated, on August 17, 1839, and it was not until tho 20th of tho following month (September) that she first reached Port Nicholson. A rendezvous had been appointed at. Port Hardy for the first body of intending colonists on January 10, 1840, but under the instructions of the company tho attention of their agent, Colonel Wakefield, had been directed to Port Nicholson as being a likely place for the establishment of the future colony... It was Edward Gibbon Wakefield, not Ixrnl Durham, who in a post-chaise drove rapidly from London to Plymouth to urge the Tory off with a view to prevent the threatened stoppage of her departure by Lord Nornianby, then Secretary of State for tho Colonies. In this Wakefield succeedcd. Dr Garnett's comments on Wakefield's vigorous action should bo more generally read, as it was this remarkable journey which to a great extent forced the hand of an unwilling British Government by causing it hurriedly to send out Governor Hohson only just in time to save New Zealand from becoming a French colony.

"But the most important of Ihceo mistakes," continues Mr Allom, "is where tlie reviewer states that the Baron de Thierry reached New Zealand two days later than t.hc Tory, and thus failed to annex the islands to the Crown of Prance. This is a very extraordinary jumble of dates and supposed, facts, not one of which is correct. There was absolutely no connection between de Thierry and 1 the arrival of the Tory in 1839. There is ample proof that from Tahiti, in 1P35, the Baron de Thierry declared his intention of establishing himself as an independent sovereign in New Zealand; that lie announced that he ' was wailing the arrival of an armed ship from Panama to enable him to procced to the Bay of Islands wil'n strength to maintain Ms -authority'; that ho did not arrive at tho Bar of Islands in his armed vessel, but in March, ''1837, issued another address to the white inhabitants of New Zealand, dated from Sydney, in which, moderating his claim to sovereignty, lie stated his intention of visiting the country 'in a peaceable- attitude'; that early in 1833 Baron de Thierry landed at Hokianga with a larae European following, mostly picked up in tho streets of Sydney; that he failed to establish his claim to some 40.000 acres of land which ho supposed Mr Kendall, the missionary, had purchased for him in 1822 (for 36 axes, as it is said); that he commenced cutting; a road to tho Bay of Islands, hut, his exchequer failing, his subjects threw off their allegiance; that he was allowed by the Natives to squat upon a piece of ground for which he promised payment at a future day; and that in 1839, at the lime when your reviewer sunno?es he was fol'owing in (lie wake of the Tory from Europe, the Baron was found by a visitor at Hokianea ' living in a humble way_ for a sovereign prince, and had no retainers to obey his command Imt. his own family.' I remember frequently meeting tho old Baron in 1862 and some of the following years, when lie was living near Auckland in very poor circumstanccs. He was by birth and education a gentleman." '.Remarking that the story of how New Zealand was saved from becoming a French convict settlement has yet to be properly told; it has been presented from time to time in many incomplete and different shapes, mostly very inaccurate, Mr Allom calls "special attention to Dr Garnctt's remarks that had not Wakefield compelled the British Government to send Ilobeon O out, or i'.nd the Treaty of Waitangi fallen through, there would have been nothing to prevent the French from takin? possession of Alcaroa, in the Middle Island. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi (lie fays) had removed the great legal difficulty, and the Queen could assert her sovereignty to the satisfaction of Slate lawyers. On'the other band, as Mr l'embcr Reeves has pointed out: 'Ilad Captain Hobson been able to conceive what was entailed in the picconic.il purchase of a country held under tribal ownership it is difficult to think that, he would have signed the treaty with, out hesitation'" Mr Allom then goes on to observe: "I think Dr Garnett in his biogrphy of Wakefield went a little too far when ho recited as supposed facts that on dit: 'Wakefield thought it, Buller wrote it, and Durham signed it.' I sec from tho iotter of Mr Bcckles AVillson that Garnett, having; after a lapse of three or four years reconsidered tho question, has assigned to Lord Durham's own pen one-half of the report, or 122 pages out of a total of 246. This may be somewhat nearer the truth. Secondly, I lia-ve never believed that tho report emanated entirely from Wakefield's own pen as well as his brain, though it seems to me very likely that he had even a greater share (herein than Dr Garnett's later verdict has given him credit for." With respect- to the famous report itself, Mr Allom eavs in conclusion: "The British Quarterly Review for November, 1849, while reviewing Wakefield's 'Art of Colonisation,' maintained not only that the Durham Report was principally the work of Wakefield, but also that Buller himself had publicly disclaimed the leading share in tho Canada Report. Buller himself had died in 1848. We can scarcely conceivo that those who desired to refute this remarkable statement would not eagerly havo availed themselves of Ihe opport unity of doing i3o had they possessed the means. I have had some official training, which first commenced when residing with Wakefield himself in 1848. I know something of tho way in which official reports are .produced, and a good deal about "Wakefield s literary methods. I think no original manuscript would he likely lo survive alter the first printing of the" report, and it is most improbable that the original report, as sent, in lo the Government would bo in tho handwriting of either Lord Durham or Wakefield. Whilst in process of manufacture the various topics would bo discussed from day to day by Durham, Wakefield and Buller, by means of a probably voluminous series of memoranda, which would bo destroyed when fair copies had been made by the'office clerks. . . I am the only living person who can prove .that (ho cony for the press was dictated by Wakefield and written down by mc, from day to day, at Boulognc-sur-Mcr, during Iho last three or four months of the year 1848. lam Iho only person who can prove that_ there never was a manuscript copy in Wakefield's handwriting, and that the copy whicli went to (he press as written down by me was hurriedly packed up at midnight on Christmas Eve, taken on board the London fteamer. and by mc delivered to Wakefield's friend Rintoul in London on Christmas morning, 1848."'