10
The deterioration in the relations between the Wesleyan missionaries and King George and his chiefs, which was already evident during the latter part of the 1850s, became increasingly apparent during the following decade. During this decline in the political influence of the missionaries generally, only one of them, Shirley Baker, began to emerge as a significant political figure. He was to play a leading part in bringing about the Constitution of 1875.
The King’s social ties with the mission had been restored by 1863 when he resumed his normal relationships with the Society and personally supervised the construction of a new chapel at Nuku’alofa which was to become the biggest and most beautiful chapel hitherto built in Tonga. However, he did not restore the senior missionaries to their former place as his political advisers and confidants and the gulf between church and state, evident at the time of the 1862 Code of Laws, was to become ever wider. One of the reasons for this was the missionaries’ change of attitude with regard to the independent sovereignty of Tonga. While the country was secure from external threats the missionaries appeared to be reasonably satisfied with the internal management of the kingdom by King George and his chiefs. However, after the decisive actions of the French in Tahiti during the 1840s, which proved beyond doubt that the European powers had entered the Pacific and were bound to disturb the politically vulnerable islands of the region, they felt some concern. They realised that the weak indigenous governments were no match for any major power, backed by warships and guns, and that Tonga was no exception.
It was natural for the Wesleyan missionaries to look to Britain, their homeland, for protection. When Thomas advised King George and his chiefs to give their country to the British, he was expressing a genuine conviction that the interests of both the mission and Tonga would best be served by placing the country under British rule. However, this well-meant advice met with vehement opposition and bitter resentment from the King and his chiefs. They regarded it as a deliberate imperialist design on the part of the missionaries to enable the government of their home country to annex Tonga (Thomas, Journal, 19 Nov. 1849).
The newer missionaries, however, were more cautious than their predecessors, and were very careful not to express their opinions on this extremely delicate subject. The rebuff suffered by John Thomas was sufficient warning to them to avoid advocating such action. Although their real attitudes might not have been different, the only expressed view on record concerning this touchy subject came from the Reverend James Thomas, who was, with Moulton and the other missionaries, bitterly opposed to Shirley Baker’s involvement in Tongan politics. In a fit of anger he declared that if Baker’s political motto was ‘Tonga for the Tongans’, his was ‘Tonga for the British’. Needless to say, King George and his chiefs reacted violently to this declaration. When James Thomas left Tonga in January 1877, he was warned that if ever he came back he would be charged with treason.
Relations were not improved when the missionaries gave very little support to what they believed were futile and dangerous overseas campaigns. In 1863 King George contemplated sending troops to Fiji to settle the disputes there between the Tongans and Fijians, particularly over land questions, and he also demanded £12,000 compensation from Cakobau for the damages and losses the Tongans suffered in 1855 when they assisted Cakobau in his fights in Fiji. The Reverend Frank Firth wrote (to Calvert, 2 Feb. 1863, Calvert 1855-79), from Vava’u saying that the chiefs and people there were thoroughly opposed to the war.1 They felt that Tonga had nothing to gain in Fiji; also two of their chiefs were going to Tongatapu to try to persuade King George to negotiate and not involve the country in war. When the King eventually decided to abandon his scheme, Whewell jubilantly wrote (to Calvert, 4 Mar. 1863, Calvert 1855-79), ‘the projected visit of King George and his warriors is quite given up. The letters of the two consuls have led to the happy result. The good and wise among the Tongans are in raptures of joy.’
The missionaries opposed these schemes not out of disloyalty to King George and his government, but out of a conviction that they were exceedingly dangerous not only to the King and his people but ultimately to the work of the mission which was their main concern in Tonga. They were convinced that King George had been ill-advised by ruthless Europeans, intent on profit-making and adventure. One missionary claimed that the King was misled by Europeans, who urged him to invade Fiji by saying to him, ‘now is your time, Tubou. England will not accept Fiji: if you go we, the Europeans and half-castes will to a man join you, and, you will walk through Fiji without any difficulty’ (Calvert to Rowe, 19 Nov. 1961, Calvert 1861, 1866). It was also said that the King’s demand for £12,000 was ‘advised ... by Mr St Julian, a papist, who is said to have lately paid his debt in Sydney without money’ (Calvert to Eggleston, 5 Mar. 1868, Calvert 1855-79). The missionaries were grieved by the loss of time, money and property spent on the preparation for the intended invasion of Fiji. They also believed that the excitement it caused was extremely harmful to the moral and religious beliefs of the people. On the other hand, King George was deeply hurt by the failure of the missionaries to give him any moral support or even sympathy in what was for him an extremely important affair. It was not an easy matter for him to lose what he claimed to be his by right (Dyson, Papers of..., VI:72). The disagreement over his plans for the Fijian invasion obviously further widened the rift between himself and the missionaries.
The King’s suspicion of the missionaries was further aggravated by their hospitable and friendly reception to the British Consul, William T. Pritchard. ‘H. Majesty’s Consul from Fiji is here’, wrote one missionary, ‘just leaving for Fiji again. I hope his visit will do good here. It will be the means of better understanding between King George and the British Authorities in Fiji’ (Whewell to Eggleston, 7 May 1862, WMMSA 1852-79). This was a rather naive belief, on the missionary’s part, for it was well known in Tonga that Pritchard was very much against the Tongans in Fiji, and that he had been working hard to invalidate King George’s claims to land there. In 1859 he had drawn up a document to the effect that the Tongans had no land rights in Fiji and had compelled Ma’afu, King George’s representative in Fiji, to sign it. Ma’afu later explained to King George that he had signed the document under duress (Derrick 1963:143).
On 20 April 1862, three days before his arrival in Tonga, Consul Pritchard had written a report on ‘The Claim of Tonga against Fiji’ (Britain, Consul, Miscellaneous Papers...). He stated in its conclusion:
While in Tonga he wrote:
In the end, he succeeded in obtaining a solemn pledge from King George that he would not make war in Fiji.
Under normal circumstances the extension of hospitality and friendship to the British Consul by the missionaries would not have caused concern to anyone, but in this particular situation it was different. It was well known that Pritchard had been doing everything in his power, though unsuccessfully, to get the British to annex Fiji. In so doing it was necessary to invalidate Tongan claims to land in Fiji and destroy Tongan interests there, and he certainly did so very effectively. The open and enthusiastic welcome which the missionaries, who were already under suspicion, extended to Pritchard was looked upon with considerable disfavour by King George and his chiefs.
Another cause of much displeasure to the King and his chiefs was the growing friendship between the missionaries and the traders who, during the 1870s, persistently and arrogantly opposed the Tongan government. There had been a steady increase in the numbers of traders settling in Tonga since the latter half of the 1850s. They disliked the restrictions placed by the government on various features of their trading ventures. Sale of land, for example, was strictly prohibited under any circumstances, making it impossible for them to secure complete ownership of land, and sale of spirituous liquors was severely restricted. At first the traders blamed the missionaries for these prohibitions, but later they realised that the missionaries had become increasingly isolated from politics. They regarded it as unthinkable that they, who belonged to the ‘Anglo-Australian’ civilised race, should be governed by laws produced by a half-civilised King and his chiefs. One of them wrote:
The belief that the British government would eventually annex Tonga was also shared by some visitors who went to Tonga. A traveller named Holt, who went there on a trading vessel in 1865, suggested in an article which appeared in one of the New Zealand papers that more people with small capital should take up business ventures in Tonga, for in a few years they would make a fortune. With regard to the question of security, he said that Britain would certainly take Tonga in the very near future ( New Zealand Advertiser, 19 June 1865).
A few years later the principal traders sent a petition to the Governor of New South Wales complaining of the manner in which Europeans were treated, and what they were subjected to in Tonga. They requested the Governor to ‘define a limit to the arbitrary authority of a government which to say the least, is and only can be semi-civilised’ (Rutherford 1971:50).
This disrespect for the laws and government of Tonga led some traders to defy the decisions of the law courts with contempt and arrogance. Philip Payne, one of the leading traders in Tonga, refused to comply with the court’s order to pay eight shillings damages to the owner of a piece of tapa cloth damaged by his horse, arguing that he did not order his horse to do the damage! He also insisted that his case should be tried by a captain of a British man-of-war.
In the main, traders and missionaries, with a few notable exceptions, viewed each other with hostlity and treated each other with disrespect. But an entirely different relationship developed between these traditionally hostile factions of the European community towards the latter part of the 1860s and during the following two decades. Miss Eliza Ann Palmer of Sydney, who went to Tonga as a guest of the Reverend and Mrs William Stephinson from 1869 to 1871, recorded in her diary that she and Miss Payne, daughter of the aforementioned trader in Tonga, joined a missionary party which went to ‘Eua one night. On the following morning Stephinson sent for a sheep farmer on the island named Parker, a hostile opponent of the government, who arrived with his horses and cart and took the party to his property (see Rutherford 1971:104). Later on in her account of the trip she wrote of another European settler: ‘Mr. Young spent the evening with us, and brought his native wife. He is a well educated gentleman and belongs to one of the best families in England and yet he is content to bury himself in ‘Eua with his Tongan wife’ (Palmer, Diary, 1869:32-6).
The sharing of similar political sentiments seems to have been a strong factor in bringing the missionaries and European traders and settlers closer together. They had in common a distrust of the direction in which the Tongan government was heading. They also had no faith in its ability to withstand the test of strength of international power politics in the Pacific. Consequently they looked to their home government for protection, and later they were in accord in their united stand against one of their country-men, Shirley Baker, who decided to align himself with King George and his chiefs in their struggle to maintain Tongan independence, and who was therefore accused of being a traitor to both his church and his country.
Although the missionaries and traders shared a common political objective, they differed widely both in their motives and in their approach. The former were paternal and benevolent in their motives, restrained and tactful in their approach; the latter were generally selfish and vindictive in their motives, forthright and arrogant in their approach. Unfortunately for the missionaries, the King and his chiefs were not in a position to understand the subtleties of the situation. The very fact that the missionaries had social relations with men who were openly in opposition to and defiance of the legitimate government of the land, and who made no secret of their desire for Britain to take Tonga, and who also boasted of the certainty of Britain’s doing so, must have been very galling to the King and his chiefs. It was little wonder that the gulf between the missionaries and the Tongan leaders in the field of politics grew increasingly wide.
The missionaries were not unmindful of their changed position with regard to local politics. They realised that they had been relegated to the background. They openly expressed their disapproval and criticism of some of the measures adopted by the King and his chiefs for the political development of Tonga. They favoured a slow, more gradual pace for the political progress which would coincide with the people’s understanding of civilised ways. Just a month before the promulgation of the 1862 Code of Laws the Reverend George Lee wrote to the General Secretary of the Mission in Sydney:
When the 1862 Code was promulgated the missionaries received it with rather mixed feelings. On the one hand they claimed it to be the direct result of the work of the mission.
One missionary wrote enthusiastically, ‘New life and thoughts are arising...—liberty is proclaimed—on the 1st of January [1863] the Tongan flag will not wave over a slave that day—Such is the glorious success of the Gospel...’ (Baker to Eggleston, 19 Dec. 1862, Baker 1860-79).
On the other hand, there were misgivings felt by the missionaries about certain aspects of the Code and their probable consequences. They were fearful of a general resurgence of heathen customs and traditions, which for decades they had laboured unceasingly to eradicate, as a result of the emancipation of the people from the power of the chiefs, and also the dropping of the clauses making these customs and practices illegal. In the years that followed directly after the promulgation of the new Code, they claimed that the unfortunate effects which they had predicted were in fact taking place. They accused the government of yielding to the pressure of English precedent in allowing matters such as fornication to go unpunished. They claimed that there were many who at first interpreted this move as a legalisation of sin and a public expression of the will of the King and chiefs regarding indulgence in vice. ‘Many of the heathen games’, they lamented, ‘though given up [were] not positively prohibited by law, and the natural tendency of the unconverted [was] to revive long gone usages’ ( RAWMMS 1866:25). The obnoxious-ness of the situation for the missionaries may be seen in the following passage from the annual report of the mission for the year ending April 1863:
The note of pessimism contained in this report was repeatedly echoed throughout the following years. The releasing of the people from a state of semi-barbarian servitude to one of almost unrestrained liberty was seen by the missionaries to have brought about a variety of deleterious results. The Ha’apai Circuit Report of 1865 stated:
Another feature of the Code that caused the missionaries much concern was its taxation provisions. They argued that the marked decline in support of the church was caused by heavy taxation. The Report of the Australasian Methodist Missionary Society (1866:22) stated:
The missionaries had reason for alarm, for in addition to the decrease in attendance there was a sharp drop in the amount of money they sent from Tonga to the Committee in Sydney. In 1862 the mission sent the Committee £2,330 5s 6d, partly in cash and partly in coconut oil, but the amount had decreased to only £1,232 13s Id in 1864, a drop of about 47 per cent, and £532 7s 6d in 1865, a drop of about 75 per cent. This was indeed a grave matter for the missionaries, particularly when they knew that the Committee in Sydney had a tendency to measure the efficacy of their work in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
The 1862 Code was also blamed for the young people’s growing indifference to education. ‘Our Institution’, said the Ha’apai Circuit Report, ‘has also received our attention, but we do not number so many at present as in former years, arising from various causes, one being that the new political changes have exercised a worldly influence upon the minds of our youth’ ( RAWMMS 1864:33). This was a worry to the missionaries, particularly when it was so obvious to them that education played a vitally important part in the success of the mission’s work.
Faced with all these difficulties and disappointments, the missionaries applied themselves vigorously and enthusiastically to the task of revitalising every facet of their work. Effective attempts were made to gain new converts and to reconvert the apostates, and the annual subscription to the mission fund was successfully raised to £3,770 in 1866 ( RAWMMS 1867:110). Education received considerable attention and it certainly showed a marked sign of reviving. In fact the missionaries achieved their purpose to a remarkable degree. But their preoccupation with the revitalisation of the mission’s activities led them consciously or unconsciously to restrict their sphere of influence. By so doing, they unwittingly strengthened the inherent narrowness of outlook which had already become a formidably negative factor in the church-state relationship.
This outlook, which discouraged vision and imagination and bred intolerance, was due in part to the policies of the mission, in its particular emphasis on the life to come rather than the here and now, and the prohibition of its members to meddle in politics.2 It was partly due also to the calibre of the men who carried out the work of the mission. Most of them appeared to be of average intelligence but without proper training and the result was that their energy and drive were not matched by their vision or imagination. For them, the mission was an end in itself rather than a means to an end, and they considered that everything should revolve around it. Their maxim seemed to be ‘Tonga for the mission’ rather than ‘the mission for Tonga’. Hence they objected to ‘excessive’ spending of money by individuals or groups on anything but the mission collection.
There were, of course, a few exceptions. The Reverend Egan Moulton was one of these. He came from a scholarly family, and although he had not received any university training, he was well educated and intelligent. He held a broader and more liberal view of the work of the mission. When he founded Tupou College in 1866, he decided that the college should become an institution upon which ‘Church and State, in their many divergent channels of departmental usefulness, were to centre their hopes and expectations...’ He planned that ‘from it the Church would draw its supply of ministers, stewards, officials, and teachers ... While from it also the Government could seek its clerks, magistrates, and other officials’ (J.E. Moulton 1921:47). He permitted students nominated by the government to enter the college.
Moulton’s fresh approach and wider and more liberal outlook met with severe opposition from his colleagues. Most of his opponents objected simply on the grounds that Moulton had indulged himself in an expensive project which would be of little benefit to the mission. Some of them argued that the sole purpose »of the college should be to train young men for the work of the mission, and the Training Institution, conducted by Amos in the fifties, was cited as the model to be followed (Greenwood to Rabone, 10 Aug. 1872, WMMSA 1852-79).
King George’s greatest ambition was to preserve the independence of Tonga, and he realised that one way of achieving this was to gain international recognition of his government. Accordingly there was a need to establish an efficient system of government which would be acceptable to the civilised countries of the world. The mission, although quite effective at the local level, was not equal to assisting in these ambitions towards international politics.
In his description of the functions of a legislative council in a letter written to King George, St Julian wrote:
The question of acquiring a written constitution for Tonga had been occupying the King’s mind for some time. A number of significant events had made him realise, more than ever before, the urgency of the need for Tonga to become recognised by the main powers. First there had been Consul Pritchard’s serious attempts to get Britain to annex Fiji in the late fifties; then the increasing involvement of the powers in Samoa and elsewhere in the Pacific in the seventies; and finally the actual annexation of Fiji by Britain in 1874. King George fully appreciated the value of having a constitution as the basis of the laws of the country, but he had to find someone who was capable of drawing up the much needed document.
As the affairs of government became increasingly complicated, particularly its external affairs, the King recognised the need for the services of a European adviser in the government, as pointed out by St Julian in his letter of 26 June 1855. He therefore adopted an Englishman named David Jebson Moss as his son, gave him the name of Tupou Ha’apai, and made him his secretary in 1864. The Reverend James Calvert of Fiji referred to him as King George’s ‘soapy secretary’ (Calvert to Rowe, 1 Nov. 1866, Calvert 1861, 1866).
Moss went to Tonga from Fiji during the 1850s. He was very proud of his Tongan name, and went to considerable trouble to identify himself with his new country and its people.3 He appears to have been enthusiastic and hard-working, but lacking ability and common sense.4 Although Moss gave King George and his government several years of useful service, it was evident that he was definitely not the man to be entrusted with the highly specialised task of drawing up a constitution—a task for which the Reverend Shirley W. Baker was destined.
Baker, like many of his missionary colleagues, had received little formal education, but he was quite gifted, highly intelligent and full of imagination and drive. He was, on the one hand, a great and enthusiastic worker, more liberal than most of his colleagues, and also an ambitious and daring opportunist. On the other hand, he had a passion for fame and a lust for power, and possessed an unlimited capacity for making enemies. The conglomeration of these qualities which formed the idiosyncracy of the man also formed the basis for both his achievements and his later downfall.
Physically, Baker was short but stout, very healthy and strong, and impressive rather than attractive. He was born in London in 1836 and there are conflicting accounts of his early youth (see Rutherford 1971:1-5). One version states that at the age of sixteen ‘he found the alluring gold fever so strong that he ran away from them in the old land, hid himself as a stowaway on board a ship for Australia’ (Roberts 1924:12), and tried his hand at gold mining in Victoria. In 1855 he had become a teacher at a Wesleyan school on the goldfields in the Castlemaine district. He was ordained a Wesleyan minister in 1860, and was sent to Tonga as a missionary, arriving there on 14 August 1860.
Soon after Baker’s arrival in Tonga, a very firm friendship developed between him and King George. This friendship, according to Baker’s daughters, became a source of annoyance to the senior ministers. Besides requesting Baker to draft the 1862 Code of Laws, the King sought his advice on the design for a Tongan flag, and in 1864 Baker made a formal presentation of a flag to the King and his chiefs (L. and B. Baker 1951:8). In 1866 he was forced to return to Australia on account of his wife’s ill health.
In his letters to the Committee in Sydney during his first term in Tonga, Baker rightly pointed out that the root of most of the troubles in the mission could be traced to the paternal and somewhat out-of-date attitudes of the older missionaries. He claimed that what they needed in Tonga was new blood, new ideas, and a fresh approach. He argued that a little prudence on their part would fix the trouble. At the same time he casually referred to his own popularity with the King and his chiefs. ‘I would not wish’, he wrote, ‘to be thought to speak unkindly of any of my Brethren. I believe that they have one and all done what they have conscientiously thought to be right (whether it is turned out so is a different thing)’ (Baker to Eggleston, 21 April 1863, Baker 1860-79). Later, in another letter, he wrote:
Reaching Sydney in 1866, Baker wrote a long letter to the Committee in which he gave a glowing account of the farewell speeches made by the Tongans in a valedictory service held for him and his family in his circuit before they left Tonga. He told how the people had wept as they spoke, and how the Governor had spoken on behalf of the King and his fellow chiefs, praying that God would so order it that they might return to them:
It would be difficult to question the sincerity of Baker’s motives for criticising the work of the mission, or the genuineness of his deep affection for Tonga; but when his remarks are viewed in relation to the later course of his career, one wonders whether these seemingly innocent remarks were not also part of a clever design to further his own ambitions. His remarks implied that the failure of the other missionaries to get on with the chiefs disqualified them for the task in hand, while he himself, with a more up to date approach, had gained the confidence and deep affection of the King and his people. When the Reverend George Lee returned to Australia in 1868 and the chairmanship in Tonga fell vacant Baker was back in the following year as the new Chairman of the District in spite of the fact that Stephinson had been in the District for about twelve years continuously.
Baker’s obsessive desire to make a name for himself and to achieve power inevitably coloured his later activities. It was probably at the root of the somewhat doubtful stories which he told of his own origin and educational achievements.5 It certainly made him fanatically intolerant of any rival to his fame, or any opposition to his power and authority. It also made him bitterly resentful if his work received no praise or recognition from the mission authorities in Sydney. In their report to the Committee, the members of a deputation which was sent to Tonga with Baker in 1869, praised Moulton’s work in the College very highly.6 This was far too much for Baker to take. He saw Moulton and his work as a threat to his own prestige and honour. So he decided to do all he could to crush both Moulton and the College. He started a campaign against the College, which eventually developed into a bitter dispute.
Baker charged Moulton with creating a false impression to the world, of things taught and accomplished in the College. He alleged that the College was a nuisance and hindrance to the work of the mission, and was only causing unpleasantness. However, the Committee gave their support to Moulton, and Baker, resentful and disappointed, wrote to the General Secretary in Sydney:
In an attempt to win the favour of the Committee, Baker turned all his energies and gifts to the task of fund-raising, knowing full well that the Committee was badly in need of money. He certainly had a flair for collecting funds. At his first missionary meeting in December 1869, the contributions came to £5,480,—£4,558 in cash and £922 in oil—and this amount was nearly £3,000 in excess of local expenses and was equal to the combined contributions of all the Methodists in Australia. Baker duly received the praise he had worked for when the January 1870 issue of Missionary Notices gave the full details of this ‘noble sum ... contributed in one year by this earnest and devoted Christian Community’. However, Baker did not enjoy this praise for long, for the dubious and ruthless methods he employed in raising funds antagonised the traders, who were in friendly relationship with the other missionaries, brought unfavourable comment from contemporaries, such as the Earl of Pembroke and Dr Kingsley, on the work of the Committee, and also provoked severe criticisms from his own colleagues. ‘The Earl and Doctor’ (Pembroke 1872:251) described the missionaries in Tonga as ‘canting sharks’. Moulton wrote (to Rabone, 10 Sep. 1872, Moulton 1855-79), ‘It’s a great mercy the Earl and the Doctor did not come to Tonga or they would have made statements more astounding than they did’, and George Minns wrote:
Frustrated by his colleagues’ opposition Baker wrote:
In fact Baker was worried over the security of his position, and he was unable to hide this fear. He wrote to the General Secretary:
But when he found out that the Conference had made no change, he excitedly wrote:
Baker then ceased to talk about leaving Tonga any more. ‘As regards my asking to return’, he wrote to Chapman, ‘I know I shall never be happier than in the mission work ... by God’s will I remain at my post until it appears it is His will for me to go ... so I will work on’ (Baker to Chapman, 4 June 1874, WMMSA 1852-79). He then started to advocate that the mission could do quite well with fewer missionaries. ‘With three men’, he argued, ‘Like Brother Watkin and a schoolmaster (layman) for the College, I would undertake to work the whole of the Friendly Islands District for ten years to come—we have too much European Ministerial help’ (Baker to Chapman, 16 July 1874, Baker 1860-79). This was an obvious way of getting rid of his opponents.
Less than a year after he had become chairman of the mission, in 1870, Baker had to face charges of immoral behaviour brought against him by his colleagues. He managed to absolve himself from the charges, but it was clear that opposition from his own colleagues was steadily growing stronger. In 1871 the bitter dispute over the College had at length come to a head and the Committee had come down in support of Moulton, much to Baker’s disgust. In 1872 his colleagues were more vocal in their criticism of his missionary meetings, and the statement in South Sea Bubbles brought upon him a sharp reprimand from the Committee.
Frustrated by the mounting opposition of his colleagues, hurt by the apparent lack of praise for, and appreciation of, his ‘success’ from the Committee, Baker turned to King George and his chiefs, not only for support, but for public recognition, by championing their aspirations and ambitions. Baker knew that King George’s two great ambitions were to maintain Tonga’s political independence and eventually to make the mission in Tonga an independent church.
Towards the end of 1872 Baker left Tonga to attend the Conference in Sydney in January 1873. He took with him a letter from King George asking the Conference to make the Mission District in Tonga an independent church. The other missionaries reacted against this move. Minns, for instance, wrote:
Moulton also wrote:
These letters from Baker’s colleagues indicate that they did not object to the idea of an independent church. What they objected to was the timing and also the way Baker had carried out the scheme, for it was quite contrary to Methodist usages. The Methodist procedure was that everything had to go through the Quarterly Meeting, then the District Meeting, before it went to the Conference. Baker ignored this constitutional procedure, and in order to justify his action before his authorities, he wrote:
It must be pointed out that the terms ‘Preachers’ Meeting’ and ‘Missionary Meeting’ are ambiguous and misleading. The Preachers‘ Meeting and Missionary Meeting which Baker referred to in his letter would have meant, in Sydney, the Quarterly Meeting and District Meeting respectively, but the Tongan Preachers’ Meeting was the weekly meeting of local preachers to obtain their instructions for the following week and there was literally no discussion at such meetings. The Missionary Meeting to which Baker was referring was simply the annual collection day, and not the District Meeting which would only have been attended by the missionaries. This episode shows how Baker did not hesitate to use cunning in order to serve his own purpose.
When Baker took over the chairmanship of the mission, he was reminded of the Society’s rule that missionaries were not allowed to involve themselves in politics. For the first two years, at least, he seemed quite content with the prestige of the new position and refrained from openly aligning himself with King George and his government. In the latter half of 1872 he deliberately and decidedly turned to politics again. As has been pointed out, the King was in need of someone capable, whom he could trust, to be his political adviser. His secretary, David Moss, had proved disappointing. His relationship with most of the missionaries was such that he was not in a position to ask any of them for help. Moulton was a good and close friend but was averse to becoming involved in politics. Seeing this opportunity of winning the King’s favour and support in the face of declining prestige in the eyes of his colleagues and the Committee, Baker threw himself in the King’s lap. He became the King’s physician, as well as his financial, political and spiritual adviser.7
When Baker left to attend the January 1873 Conference in Sydney, he wrote, ‘I made a request to the King concerning the alteration of certain laws and customs—they have had a meeting of the chiefs and passed them all ... I am aware of the great responsibility laid upon me and of the powerful influence I yield [sic]...’ (Baker to Chapman, 12 May 1873, Baker 1860-79). Baker managed to get the King to dismiss David Moss in 1872, and he virtually became the King’s secretary himself. Cries of opposition arose from various quarters, and Baker, defending himself, wrote:
At their District Meeting in 1873 severe objections were raised by Moulton against Baker’s involvement in politics. Serious discussion followed although no formal charges were laid against the Chairman. In December of the same year Baker reported:
The King wanted a constitution and had obviously told Baker so. At the same time he probably asked Baker to draw up the constitution for him, for, while Baker was in Sydney towards the end of 1872, he used the opportunity to seek advice and assistance on legal constitutional matters from the Premier of New South Wales, Sir Henry Parkes, who gave him a copy of all the laws of the government of New South Wales since its inception, and also from the Hawaiian Consul-General, E. Reeve, who had succeeded St Julian. As a result, in 1875 Baker was able to hand to King George his own very much coveted constitution; this was then presented to the Parliament which ratified it on 4 November of the same year.
Although Baker had hinted to the missionary authorities in Sydney that the King desired to have a constitution, his work in drawing it up was a closely guarded secret, for, when it finally came out, his missionary colleagues reacted unfavourably to it. Watkin, who usually supported Baker, wrote:
Later he again wrote:
Another missionary wrote complaining of the difficulties of raising funds in 1876 because of the adverse effects of the new constitution:
However, Baker did not share the pessimistic views of his colleagues; instead he wrote jubilantly in 1876 of successful meetings, and of over 200 new members joining the Society in one week. He added, ‘the new state of things is working well to the admiration of almost all—as far as Tongatabu is concerned and all the years I have been in Tonga 17 years now I never knew it in a better state spiritually’ (Baker to Chapman, 22 July 1876, Baker 1860-79).
In his decision to dissociate himself from the policy of his colleagues and champion the cause of the King and his chiefs, Baker certainly helped them in their legitimate struggle to make Tonga an independent nation and an independent church. There can be no doubt that Baker was motivated in his actions by self-interest, but neither can it be denied that he loved the Tongans and sympathised with their aspirations. It is to be regretted that he sometimes reverted to the use of rather dubious tactics in order to achieve his ends. However, in his determination to stand by the Tongans, in the face of bitter opposition from almost every quarter, and to champion a cause which the settlers and his colleagues regarded as lost, Baker showed a great deal of courage. In doing what he did, he enabled King George and his chiefs to bring about what, in fact, all Tongans regarded as one of the greatest achievements in the history of their country— Ko e Fokai ’o e Konisitutone—the granting of the constitution.