DR. LANG—THE MISSIONARIS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 275, 15 November 1873, Page 2

DR. LANG—THE MISSIONARIS.

[The following is extracted from the New Zealand Wesleyan for November. Dr Lang's experience of New Zealand, we have heard, was very slight indeed on his first visit.] The Key Dr Lang, of New South Wales notoriety, has been travelling, preaching, and lecturing in New Zealand. From the newspaper reports we learn that he has been unsparing in condemnation of the missionaries to the Moaris. More than thirty years ago, the said Dr Lang, when on one of his voyages to England, put into the Bay of Islands. While there he gathered from "certain lewd fellows of the baser sort " such reports as they were ready to fabricate. Those who knew Kororarika in those days will understand what I say. Thus furnished, the Rev Dr published a pamphlet, as remarkable for the virulence of its animus, as for the falsehood of its statements. If that act of this Ishmaelite divine was anything but right, this last act is everything that is wrong. The men whom he vilifies were then alive to speak for themselves, now they are, for the most part, in their graves. To Dr Lang belongs credit for ability and for experience, bat not for Christain charity. In talking so freely about New Zealand missionaries, the Dr classes himself with some others — "understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." After the early missionaries have don 9 their work, it is an easy thing for Dr Lang to come and tell us how much better it might have been done. Why did he not copy the noble example of the late Eev S. Marsden, and venture himself to " perils by the heathen," by giving his superior endowments to this land of cannibal celebrity. The accusations which this gentleman brings against the missionaries range themselves into three counts: — First. One of them was dismissed for immortality. Second. They bought large tracks of land from the Maoris. Third. That they are responsible for the " Hau-Hau-ism " The fir3t and third of these charges need little remark. With reference to the first, I will go even further than the Dr, and inform them that not only one, but two, were expelled; that is, one from each Society. And what then ? Will Dr Lang say that the body was corrupt because a diseased member was cut off? If so, let him try his own Church by this rule. " They that dwell in glass houses should not throw stones." Concerning the third charge, it is enough to meet it by a simple but emphatic denial. It is the second of these charges that calls for some examination, not merely because Dr Lang fathers it, but for this reason — that there are many others who are misled by unfounded reports. Things have been said which are as unjust to the memory of the dead as they are painful to the living— their descendants. I can speak on this subject with the more freedom, having bßen from the early part of 1836 a missionary to the Maoris, and can challenge any one to show that either myself or any of my brethren, the Wesleyan missionaries, ever purchased an acre of land from the Maoris, excepting for lona fide mission purposes. It is against the agents of the Episcopalian mission (or some of them) that the complaint is made. But neither I nor my brethren can accept a quasi compliment at the expense of our fellow-laborers in a good cause. And men 100, lam bold to say, who, in point of character and zeal, if not in talents, were not a " whit behind " their reverend traducer. That some of them did buy land is freely admitted. I offer no opinion as to the expediency of their doing so. If on this ground it was a mistake, it amounted only to an error in judgment, and cannot justify an attack upon their motives. For I have yet to learn that there was anything morally wrong in the purchases they made — even the largest of them. Has it ever been proved that they took any advantage of the Maoris ? that less than the market value was given in payment? or that they engaged in a mere I commercial speculation ? I believe in j every instance they gave full price, and in some cases more than the worth of the lend. If the native settlers were at all dissatisfied, they had an opportunity in the Commissioners' Court in 1841 of saying so, butl never heard of any repudaition on their part. And so far were they from buying in order to sell again, that they did not think of buying at all until after their many children had come to an age when the question of their future

destiny forced itself upon their enquiry. When I came to the country, more than 37 years ago, the children of the families belonging to the Episcopalian mission numover one hundred, and some of them had become parents themselves. This question had been referred to their committee in London, who, after very serious consideration of the matter, authorised their missionaries to buy a certain area of land as an endowment for each child, which should be a home-stead. At that time there was no colony in New Zealand, nor the prospect of one. Therefore the only available market for produce was that which was afforded by the vessels — principally whalers —that visited the Bay of Islands and other ports. Hence the young men had to be graziers rather than farmers. This required a large extent of run. A great deal has been made of the vast territory they acquired. One claimant owned 50,000 acres, but this had been bought from contending parties, in order to put an end to a tribal war — a circumstance which can be well understood by those who are acquainted with the state of the natives in those days. Another claimed 22,000 acres, a third 20.C30, a fourth 19,000, and a fifth 18,552 acres. Besides these, there were seventeen purchases varying in extent from 250 to 11,665 acres. The largest of all was less than the runs row held by some stock-owners in these Islands. . And it should be known that a very large proportion of the acreage is of a stiff clay soil, which produces nothing but a stunted fern, and is not worth sixpence an acre at this day. On the more select spots these missionaries' Bons have succeded in raising smiling fields with flocks and herds, the fruifc of their industrial training, their strong arms, and their sturdy toil. Base envy alone can withhold from them a tribute of praise. Let me ask— whom have they wronged? Not the Maoais among whom they have so many centres of moral and religious influence; nor their fellow settlers, for they had not yet exposed themselves to the hazard of this land; not the public at large, for in the several relations of Ufa —domestic, social, and political — they are not inferior to any other class of the community, as a contribution to the commonwealth. Even the land purchases themselves have to some extent been utilised for the benefit of the public. Of the 20,000 acreß bought by the late Mr Fairburn, only 8,000 acres were secnred to him and his family by title from the crown — the balance was appropriated by the Government.

The position which Dr Lang chooses to assume toward a these missionaries reminds one of the fabie of the « wolf and the lamb." It might have passed in silence "had an enemy done this." But it is a pitiable thing for an aged minister to becoma the "accuser of the brethren." Suppose these venerable men, out of reapect to such as Dr Lang, had neglected the interests of their families and left them, children of fortune, to float on the surface of society; what would this very self-denying man have said then? We know what a greater than he has said:— "If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." But here I may be asked : " How did the Wesleyan missionaries make provision for their families although they bought no land?" I answer : The cases are not parallel. The Wesleyan missionaries were forbidden by a law of their Society thus to acquire land for themselves, but the Episcopalian missionaries had the sanction of their Society in so doing. The ministry of the Wesleyan church is migratory? that of the Episcopalian stationary. When the children of the Wesleyan mission grew to that age at which it would be a great disadvantage for them to remain in New Zealand, their fathers had an acknowledged claim to be removed to one of the colonies, or to England, where they would be appointed to another charge j the Episcopalian missionaries had to live in new Zealand to the end of their days, or leave it wholly at their own risk of employment elsewhere. Hence the conditions of the Episcopalian and the Wesleyan missionaries, as to making provision for their children, were widely different. It is in the north of New Zealand that the purchases of the missionaries were made, and chiefly in the Bey of Islands where the first stations were planted. In the course of my duty, I had the opportunity about five years ago, of visiting many of their homes. While beholding their comforts, sharing their hospitality, and observing their good influence which they threw around them, I could not but think that if some of those grand old men— men "of whom the world was not worthy "—some of whom lived and labored for more than half a century in this once savage land— if they had done no other good than to have so well trained and so well provided for their large and well-ordered families— now multiplied to the third and fourth generation — they thereby have bequeathed to this country a legacy of far more value than all the money which they themselves cost the Society to whose service they gave their lives. I can have no reason whatever but in the interests of truth and justice in thus writing in the defence of men who " after they have served their own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep," the memory of the jaat is traduced by a haughty ecclesiastic. I can appeal with confidence to the knowledge of 1 my own brethren whose personal recollections carry them back to those early days. lam sure that the Bey Messrs Hobbs, Wallie, Warren, j and Lawry will readily endorse every word I have penned. JAMES BULLER. Good Templarism is rapidly making headway in Auckland. About 150 new members have joined the Pioneer Lodge. I