RENDER UNTO VICTORIA WHAT IS VICTORIA’S
In January 1850, Britain’s Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston became enraged at the Greek Government’s long record of dishonesty, incompetence and hostility to the trans-national banking sector. And after the Greeks reneged on all their outstanding debts to British Subjects, he ordered a naval blockade of the Greek coast.
As the historian E.L. Woodward explains:
the ‘immediate circumstances of this action were a little ridiculous. One Don Pacifico, a Portuguese money-lender who claimed British citizenship on the grounds that he had been born in Gibraltar, asked for a large sum in compensation for the pillaging of his house in Athens. Palmerston took Pacifico’s exaggerated complaints at face-value and treated it as the last count against the Greek Government ...’
As it was explained to me in History Class back in the 1960s, this confirmed the doctrine of ‘Civis Britannicus Sum’ under which the King or Queen of the United Kingdom could request from foreigners [according to the Preamble in your passport] your safe passage hither and thither without let or hindrance – on pain of gunboat.
Fittingly, unlike the application of ‘Civis Romanus Sum’ to St Paul, which was applied in matters of freedom of thought and religion, the British equivalent was applied to dodgy banking.
It does raise an interesting issue though for New Zealanders in general - and Maori in particular - as to what was actually intended by Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi (1840), which reads:
‘In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal Protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.’
Particularly, as this is in marked contrast to the provisions of other deeds of cession / acquisition across the British Empire.
For example, the Deed of Cession of Fiji to Great Britain (1874) summarises the expected outcomes under Article 7, in the following terms:
'That on behalf of Her Majesty His Excellency Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson promises;
1. that the rights and interests of the said Tui Viti and other high chiefs the ceding parties hereto shall be recognised so far as is and shall be consistent with British Sovereignty and Colonial form of government;
2. that all questions of financial liabilities and engagements shall be carefully scrutinized and dealt with upon principles of justice and sound public policy;
3. that all claims to title to land by whomsoever preferred and all claims to pensions or allowances whether on the part of the said Tui Viti and other high chiefs or of persons now holding office under them or any of them shall in due course be fully investigated and equitably adjusted’.
No British Citizenship here, even though any ‘financial liabilities’ to the banking sector are given an explicit mention!
MAORI OWE A DEBT GREATER THAN THEY ACKNOWLEDGE TO PAKEHA [-MAORI]
I had been thinking about writing on the Treaty’s Article 3 for some time – but another delightful re-run from TVNZ’s ‘Heartland’ archive stock of ‘Country Calendar’ programmes finally got me going. You can see some of the stash [but unfortunately not the one to which I am referring] at:
The programme in question catches up with the contemporary Maori descendants of a couple of notorious and colourful ‘Pakeha-Maori’ – that is Europeans who slipped the leash of civilisation and embraced the Maori way of life [and their women] prior to 1840.
In particular, the episode covered the story of ‘Barnet Burns’ and the descendants of his son Hori Waiti [George White] by Amotawa the daughter of a Maori Chief Te Aria of the Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare hapu which was part of Te Uranga Wera or the ‘Burnt Post’ tribe on the East Coast of the North Island.
Barnet was reputedly born around 1805 and spent less than 4 years living in New Zealand and trading flax and muskets between February 1831 and October 1834 – during which time he was, according to his own account, married to a Maori princess, captured and nearly eaten by a Ngai Te Rangi war party from whom he escaped half-tattooed with a facial tā moko, and ultimately appointed Chief of a tribe of over 600 people.
There are a couple of entertaining articles on the Internet about Barnet, so you can catch up on them through the links below:
Suffice it to say that he was a man of mystery, proven braggart and stranger to the truth who died as an alcoholic. Some of the best quotes:
- ‘So here I was amongst a set of cannibals ... not knowing the moment when they might take my trade from me, and not only my trade, but my life’
- On his settling in England in 1836, ‘Barnet Burns styled himself as Pahe-a-Range and in May 1836 he appeared at the Chichester Mechanics' Institution, where his lectures were described as one incongruous jumble of impudence, of ignorance, of low wit, and bare-faced presumption’
- And in 1844, one of New Zealand's early colonist-entrepreneurs, Jerningham Wakefield, recorded being unimpressed by one of Burns' lectures described how the lecturer ‘dressed with sandals and strings of beads on his legs and wrists, a leopard-skin petticoat, a necklace of pig's tusks, and a crown of blue feathers a foot long - sings NZ ditties to a tune! - and talks gibberish, which he translates into romantic poetry’.
I was fascinated to find though that he had a connection to Jamaica that has some resonance to one of my recent articles about the pervasive influence of slavery:
Barnet Burns claimed to have been born in Liverpool around 1805 and to have shipped as a cabin boy around 1818, eventually deserting his ship in Kingston, Jamaica. While there, he took up with Louis Celeste Lecesne, a relatively successful merchant who was following in his father's footsteps. Louis was 6-8 years older than Barnet. The two men appeared to have travelled together to England around 1825, with Lecesne assisting briefly in the continued education of his friend and charge.
Lecesne became a major figure in the Anti-Slavery Campaign and you can check out his story at:
Prior to settling in England around 1825, Lecesne had been the subject of a cause celebre in which, as a ‘person of colour’, he was accused of being an alien who had entered Jamaica from Haiti on false papers. The presence of educated, mixed-race traders like Lecesne posed a problem for the authorities as it breached the general rule that skin colour and slavery could be equated.
The Jamaican Government under the Duke of Manchester sought to prove that Lecesne was guilty of a conspiracy then under the 1818 Alien Act and that he could be repatriated to Haiti, following the confiscation of his goods.
A lengthy court case ensued which Lecesne and his brother-in-law John Escoffery won by proving that they had been born in Jamaica of Haitian immigrant parents. However, the determination was not accepted and the case eventually reached Westminster.
As Hansard reports of the Proceedings in the House of Commons [May 1824]:
‘Dr. Lushington rose to present a petition to which he requested the attention of the House, and particularly of ministers of his majesty's government. If the facts alleged were true, there never was a case which called more loudly for their interference; not only with a view to do justice to the oppressed, but also to punish the oppressors.
‘The petition stated, that the petitioners are freemen of colour, natives of Kingston, in the island of Jamaica, where they had constantly resided; that they were married to women, also natives of that island, and had each four children—that they were engaged in business as liquor-merchants—that they held the rank of serjeants in the militia, in which they have served since the year 1813;
‘and that they possessed property in the island, consisting of houses, land, and slaves: that about the latter end of September last, the petitioners underwent an examination before certain magistrates of Kingston as to the proofs they possessed of being British-born subjects, when they produced, in support of that fact, the certificates of their baptism, and other necessary documents
'and that the sentence pronounced by the court was, that the petitioners were both British-born subjects, and as such entitled to their discharge, and to the enjoyment of all their privileges as British Citizens’.
So, across the British Empire, a legitimate claim to British Citizenship was a very big issue.
As for Barnet Burns, nobody seems to have ever questioned whether or not he had been born in England – or whether or not his moko concealed a somewhat swarthy face?
I note only, with respect to his presumed birthplace, that:
- A search of the online parish records for Kirkby [Liverpool] does not disclose any record of the birth of a Barnet Burns – or indeed of any Burns family members in the decades surrounding 1805
- Kirkby Ireleth [where some Burns family members are recorded] is in Cumbria and is not to be confused with Kirkby in Liverpool.
The pair was lodging in a boarding house at 167 High Street, Linton near Ely in Cambridgeshire. Rosina is described as a 50-year old Professor of Music who had been born in London. As for Barnet, he does not record his birthplace as Liverpool, rather he describes himself as a 44-year old Lecturer who was a 'British Subject'.
It is my guess then that Barnet was probably born in Jamaica. And that in the lead up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Barnet and his fellow ruffian Pakeha-Maori [many of whom shared an unconventional history] made their guests very well aware of the virtues of being classed as British Subjects.
Though the Treaty of Waitangi has created many problems, nobody has ever questioned Article 3 – and it may well have never been written in had it not been for Fifth Column Pakeha-Maori who knew its implications all too well from their experience in other corners of the British Empire.
No comments:
Post a Comment