soon became apparent. It was clear that no proper estimate had been made of the probable expenses of government. The Company had taken its rise in an atmosphere of borrowing, and no serious attempt appears to have been made to limit expenditure by means in hand. The British Government was compelled to interfere, and under the firm hand of the new Governor, Captain Grey, the Colony gradually returned into the paths of solvency. Whatever may have been the mistakes and mismanagement which attended the foundation of South Australia, they furnish no argument to the enemies of the Wakefield theory. The South Australia Act had been the result of compromise. The Government had been at first half-hearted, and but for the help of the Duke of Wellington,1 the Bill would have been defeated in the House of Lords. Wakefield himself was strongly opposed to many of its provisions. When all however has been said, the fact remains that under it a population of 15,000 persons were, within a few years, settled in a new country without any of those attendant misfortunes and failures which have generally waited upon new Colonies. From the point of view of the moment, South Australia may have been a failure, but from the point of view of history it was no less certainly a success. N. Zea- In approaching the subject of the colonization of New land. Zealand, the student is treading on ground which is still hot with the ashes of controversy. A copious literature has arisen about the wrongs and rights of the New Zealand Company, the English settlers, and the Maoris. For present purposes we must be content with bare outlines. New Zealand had been discovered by Captain Cook, and claimed as British territory. Although the greater part of the Islands were included in the original commission of Captain Phillip as Governor of New South Wales, no steps had been taken to enforce such claim, and it therefore remained inoperative from the standpoint of international law. In process of time, the North Island, from its situation, became more and more the resort of the lowest kind 1 Acc. to Wakefield in View of Colon., p. 48. c. 53, see of European trader; and a Statute was therefore passed in 1817 giving the New South Wales Court the power 57 G. III., to try offences committed in New Zealand. In 1832 a also 4 G. British Resident was appointed. As, however, his instruc- IV., c. tions expressly admitted, "You are aware that you cannot be G. IV., clothed with any legal power, by virtue of which you might c. 83. be able to arrest British subjects offending against British or colonial laws in New Zealand," not much good could be expected from his appointment. Meanwhile, as we have seen, colonization was in the air. "We are going, I think," 1 Wakefield said in 1836, "to colonize New Zealand, though we are doing so in a most slovenly and scrambling and disgraceful manner. New Zealand is coming under the dominion of the English Crown. Adventurers go . . . and make a treaty with the native Chief, the poor Chief not understanding a word of it . . . for a few trinkets and a little gunpowder, they obtain land. After a time, in these cases, after some persons have settled, the Government at home begins to receive hints that there is a regular settlement of English people . . . and has been generally actuated by a wish to appoint a Governor and says, 'this spot belongs to England, we will send out a Governor."" At the time, cross currents were at work. On the one hand there was the movement in favour of colonization. As a result of Wakefield's evidence before the Parliamentary Committee, Mr F. Baring was induced to found, along with Wakefield and others, in 1837, the New Zealand Association. But at this stage, the other current meets us. Another Parliamentary Committee had considered the general question of the Aborigines, and had strongly urged the iniquity of ousting native proprietors from their land. The statute of 1817 had declared that New Zealand was "not within His Majesty's Dominion," and Secretaries of State3 persisted, as late as 1839, in regarding it as "a sovereign and independent State." When, therefore, the New Zealand Association approached the Government, they found themselves confronted with a powerful opposition. 1 Evidence before Parl. Com. 2 Parl. Pap., 1836-1837. 2 3 e.g., Lord Normandy. The Church Missionary Society at home was against British annexation, though the missionaries on the spot recognised that some such measure had become inevitable. In addition to other causes of difficulty there were those connected with Lord Glenelg's general incapacity and weakness. It was not until 1839 that he was "turned out "1 of the Ministry by his colleagues for his "incompetence to administer colonial affairs." As a pillar of the Church Missionary Society, he may have felt distrust of the New Zealand Association; but as a Minister he mumbled that 2 "the jealousy of foreign Powers might be excited by the extension of British Colonies, and that we had Colonies enough. They were very expensive to govern and manage, and not of sufficient value to make it worth while to increase their number." The New Zealand Association was disappointed, as, apparently, they had at first won the sympathies of the energetic and capable Under Secretary, Lord Howick. The grievance, which he considered he had against Lord Howick, embittered Gibbon Wakefield, and seriously diminished his power for good. Meanwhile, the Association proceeded with its Bill in Parliament, which ran on the lines of the South Australian measure, except that it proposed to delegate all powers to specially appointed Commissioners for a limited term of years. The Bill was referred to a Committee of the House of Lords, the terms of whose report were significant. They carefully refrained from comment on the New Zealand Association; merely contenting themselves with affirming that the extension of the colonial possessions of the Crown was a question of public policy, which belonged to the decision of Her Majesty's Government. They considered, however, that "support... of the exertions, which have already effected the rapid advancement of the religious and social conditions of the Aborigines of New Zealand, affords the best present hope of their future progress in civilisation." All this time the New Zealand Association was being tantalised, and led from pillar to post by the Colonial Office. They were offered a 3 1 Greville Memoirs, Vol. I., Oct. 10, 1839. 3 Parl. Pap., 1838. charter,1 if they would become a joint stock company trading The Treaty of Waitangi, signed February 6th, 1840, was Treaty of the result of these instructions. Under it, the chiefs of the Waitangi. Confederation of the United tribes of New Zealand, and the independent chiefs, ceded to the Queen "absolutely and without reservation" all rights and powers of sovereignty. On the other hand the Queen "confirms and guarantees.. the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their landş and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties, which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and power to retain the same in their possession, but the chiefs . . . yield to her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands, as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate." The natives of New Zealand were henceforth to enjoy "all the rights and privileges of 1 Wakefield, Ev. before Parl. Com., 1840. 2 Ibid. British subjects." It would seem that the action of the New Zealand Company was probably the means of saving New Zealand to the British Empire.1 In 1839 there were negotiations between a French Company and the Government. A war vessel was put at the disposition of the Company: the intention being "Fonder et occuper les premiers établissements, qui y seront créés par la campagnie, après qu'elle aura acquis les terrains, sur lesquels elle s'établira." The Company in return "livrera a l'Etat le quart de terrains qu'elle pourra acquérir." In this respect, at any rate, the new Zealand Company deserved well of the future New Zealand nation. In considering the controversy between the British Government and the New Zealand Company, it would seem that all parties were to blame. If the New Zealand Company descended more and more from being an Association, commanding the support of some of the best men of the day, into a mere joint stock affair, which, as such, managed badly its financial concerns, it was, in great measure, due to the fact that it was impossible to carry on the work of colonization on a large sound and liberal scale," "without the cordial co-operation "2 of the British Government. The situation, from the first, was an impossible one. A private company tried to force, and did force the hands of the Colonial Office. The intention of the English Government and of its colonial officers, in the Treaty of Waitangi, and in the annexation, was to preserve the rights of the Maoris. The intention of the New Zealand Association, and of the settlers, was to throw open to British colonization a new and fruitful portion of the earth. In this state of things, friction and disputes were inevitable. Under the convenient land law of the Maoris, it appeared that property lay with the male members of the tribe, so that alienation by individuals was inoperative. Hence the title of the Company to the lands, which they claimed to have bought, appeared 1 See Rusden, Hist. of New Zealand, Vol. I., p. 241. The annexes quoted by Mr Rusden appear omitted in the English Blue Book. Parl. Pap. 1845. 2 Parl. Pap. 1844. Rep. of Com. on N. Zealand. |